Note:Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted too, so it's not a necessary condition either. (See When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.

Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.

The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.

RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.

Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page. G6 speedy deletion may be appropriate in such cases.

Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.

The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.

The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: #Neutrality of redirects

It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)

If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.

If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.

If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.

If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

They have a potentially useful page history, or edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.

They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.

They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.

You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot#Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.

Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility.

Just like article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}~~~~

Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

This redirect is odd. Per its history, it was originally and only used for testing the css of the Main Page. However, as a title, it's a bit misleading since one would probably think that this page contains the css of the main page, which it doesn't; it's a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I'm generally not in favor of deleting 10+yearold non-mainspace pages unless they have major problems, but this one appears to have been useless for most of its history; it's not something that really needs to be retained. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Actually (now that I've had some time to look at the edit histories), I suspect that the contents of this page were, at some point, cut-and-pasted to Main Page. The proof I see is with this edit. The main portion of Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS's edit history takes place during the dates listed in the aforementioned edit: 2004 November 23 and 2004 November 25. However, if that is the case, I'm not sure if any one is brave enough to attempt a history merge on Main Page, given that Wikipedia will be temporarily broken during the history merge's execution. Steel1943 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy keep for attribution purposes, since the "this edit" link demonstrates that the attribution history of the Main Page depends partly on this page. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have restored Main Page/CSS as a redirect to this page as this is what was used for attribution. So if the above redirect needs deleting, then chop this too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial Consultations is a diplomatic forum involving Australia and the UK. It's mentioned at Australia–United Kingdom relations, but it really isn't explained there at all. I would recommend deleting per WP:REDLINK. BDD (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The rather maximus Auk is rather minimal these days, I think, but would that be possibly stretchable: Unlikely but just throwing it in for consideration. Si Trew (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems to just be a palindrome of blood. Not mentioned in article, unnecessary. JZCL 18:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete - surprisingly, there are a number of things on the 'net that this could refer to. None are particularly notable. Delete to prevent confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. There's a lot of "Doolb's" online but it's mostly just a fancy way of typing "blood". --Lenticel(talk) 00:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well then you don't know what a palindrome is. But delete anyway, I think in Hamlet Shakespeare says ignorance is bliss. Palindromos is from the greek, by the way, and means the same backwards as forwards, roughly speaking, which this patently isn't. Mirror writing, roughly speaking. Si Trew (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean Lenticel there. It is not a palindrome, and I don't need to be lectured on Greek or English. It is not, but shold be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Refine to Romain_Rolland#Bibliography where it is mentioned. I'm also okay if someone more familiar with this Nobel laureate's works can draft an article for it.--Lenticel(talk) 08:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the issue is that Rolland did not write a novel called Orsino. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Rolland's a known novelist and people might think that Orsino is one of these novels. Of course, an article would be better in clearing the confusion about this work.--Lenticel(talk) 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like this was created as the result of a misunderstanding of his article's bibliography section. If he didn't write one, and if there's no other place where we could reasonably send it, there's no good alternative to deletion. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

{{R from incorrect disambiguation}} is for "a typographical error or format that does not follow Wikipedia convention", not for "there literally is no novel in existence by this name." Check out the other category members. (they're mostly animal breeds where MOS convention is to not use a parenthetical) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To me, this seems vaguely comparable to the Adam and Andrew Smith example in WP:RFD#DELETE point 2. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (I'm still not convinced that this redirect should remain since it targets a disambiguation page, but as seen below, it is obvious that it's not changing.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This was created as a misspelling, but its target is a disambiguation page that has no entries that match the spelling. Since this is the case, I question its usefulness. I could see this as being a helpful redirect as a plural to a page such as Pickel, but that is currently a surname list (so retargeting there wouldn't be very helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep. If you forget that the word's spelled "pickles", you might type this. Redirecting an alternate title to a disambiguation page is good for valid spellings of different names, e.g. if it weren't a separate page, Henri would be a good redirect to Henry only if the latter page included people named "Henri". This, however, is a routine {{R from misspelling}} — as long as it's a plausible typo, the contents of the target are completely irrelevant to the redirect. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

UC San Diego doesn't have a National Bureau of Economic Research, and the actual National Bureau of Economic Research is neither affiliated with UC San Diego nor the University of Southern California. TritonsRising(talk) 01:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete – I repaired the confusion that used it here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Biniam is the equivalent to "Benjamin" in an Ethiopian language, which is why it redirects there. However, Benjamin isn't Ethiopian, "Biniam" isn't mentioned in that article, and there isn't anyone of that name with a Wiki article, so I'm not sure what to do with this. I would like to see this deleted per WP:REDLINK unless a better target can be found. Tavix | Talk 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Albania saves the day. (NAC) Tavix | Talk 17:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It could be harmful. If someone wanted to search for this (I don't know why they would, but that's beside the point), they would specifically be looking for something by the name of "+355." They'd be really disappointed that there isn't anything in 355 (disambiguation) by that name. On the other hand, if this redirect is deleted, someone searching for "+355" would no longer have that problem. By the way: thanks for the grammar correction. It's something that I don't ever think about. Tavix | Talk 01:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep per ST, it wouldn't be harmful, since it is a disambiguation page link, and the target is a disambiguation page. any uses for "+355" would just be listed there -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

But there aren't any entries for "+355." That's the problem. Tavix | Talk 04:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep - I have added an entry for +355. Ivanvector (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The target is not about Hop-picking in the UK, but merely a type of temporary housing sometimes used there once. It wrongly gives the impression that we have an article about Hop-picking in the USUK when we don't. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I was just watching a segment of a TV programme about the history of hop-picking in the south-east of England where generations of people from the East end of London spent a month in the summer, picking hops as a working holiday. This is something that has a long history before mechanisation put and end to it and it is still remembered fondly by many people. I decided to have a look to see if there was an article about it but there wasn't. A search then revealed there was a mention of it in Hops and also in Hopper hut - which a lot more information about the tradition. I decided to create a redirect from Hop-picking to Hopper hut but, having created it, realised that it was not appropriate as hop-picking is something that happens anywhere hops are grown. I then changed that redirect to the Hops article and created a new redirect for Hop-picking in the UK to to Hopper hut. The reasoning for this is that anyone searching for an article on the subject would be unlikely to go to the hopper hut article. I hoped this may encourage someone to write an article about it, but if not, I'll write it myself over the redirect when I have time. Oh, and I think Oiyarbepsy meant the UK - not the US. Richerman(talk) 02:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think an article is justified, it's better to delete the redirect, which encourages new articles. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making here (or what trog means) - are you saying we also need a redirect for Hop picking? As for "why the UK was called out" haven't I explained that already? It's a particular piece of British history about which people may look for information. If you want to delete the redirect page that's fine - I'll write the article when I have time. If you read the Hopper hut article there is a short section about George Orwell there. There's plenty of material if you look at google books and search for hop-picking - including the Orwell essay. Also, when I google hop-picking - with or without the hyphen - the first few pages of results are all about hop-picking in the UK. Richerman(talk) 00:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. No, it is perfectly correct in statistics; to say that something is non-random is to say "this is not what we would expect from the expected chi-square mean distrubution, roughly, but that the, say, 95% chi square distribution is outside that may be attributable to some other causation or correlation, and thus not random but explicable to tend towards the norm.

So to be non-random is perfectly fine to fit that technical, statistical sense, statistical noise means randomness here, but that is a DAB to Gaussian noise and White noise. (WP:TWODABS). Si Trew (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC) (Incorporated Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, if it matters.)

Seems like a hoax - can't find anything on Google and the name Jared doesn't come up in the article. JZCL 20:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet but I do think we have had this particular name before. Patently not exactly (perhaps Mac, etc.) and deliberately not looking. These are all schoolboy pranks and let them have their fun: But I do say, I got an apology from an English public school in 2011 from his pupils doing this kind of thing. I didn't ask for it but apparently I was Wikipedia at that time in his eyes, I can imagine the lecture "An editor at Wikipedia told me that some of you boys have been playing putting silly names in.... now I have this letter from an editor at Wikipedia...." Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC) But Wikipedia is not a school playground and these R's are. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete according to my Google Book search, this entry can pertain to multiple Jared McDonald's. It's probably best to redlink this entry since I can't gauge which of the Jared's that I found pass notability.`-Lenticel(talk) 07:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Wrong forum, Refuse jurisdiction Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

weak keep. Out of context it does seem NPOV but the article notes that (a big part of) the reason for his notability is "posting the worst plus/minus rating in single-season NHL history at -82 for the Washington Capitals in 1974–75.". If there are other people who have a claim to this title then we could disambiguate, but "Defenceman" is a term used only in ice hockey. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't matter if sources have said he's bad, we need sources who have actual called him worst defenceman ever, as if it's his nickname. We don't have that, or I don't see the evidence. This should perhaps be closed early as an attack page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point, the plus minus rating mentioned shows that he was not a good defenceman but we still need evidence that he has actually been called the worst defenceman ever.--67.68.30.108 (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about him being called the "worst defenceman ever" but him statistically being the worst. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I would see that a case of Wikipedia making its now analysis making It an inappropriate redirect. The way I see it the term should be in use first.--67.68.30.108 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia's analysis, it is the objective ranking used in the sport that we're simply reporting. The term does not need to be in use if it is not about the term (which it isn't). This is a likely search term for people looking for either people called the worst, or people who statistically are the worst - as long as the target is clear as to which it is (and both my suggestions are) then there is no problem at all with neutrality. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't need to incorporate all sports as, per our defenceman article, ice hockey is the only sport that uses the term. Other sports used "defender" and similar and would need only a hatnote or see also. I also disagree that it would need to be about people who have been called the worst, people who are the worst by the standard ranking in the sport is an equally valid list (indeed being objective possibly even more so). Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As a hockey fan who doesn't follow a lot of other sports, that actually surprised me that ice hockey is the only sport that uses that term. I see what you're saying about putting a statistical list together. I looked, but couldn't find the required data for it though. Tavix | Talk 13:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Absent confirmation he is verifiably the worst defenceman ever, this is speedy deleteWP:G10 (pages which disparage and serve no other purpose). If this discussion decides to retarget then a new redirect should be created in place. Ivanvector (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: If you read the article you will see that the verification is there. Speedy deletion, or deletion prior to retargetting, is not required. Thryduulf (talk)

Delete – This redirect points to a section of an article that has been deleted as its subject was deemed non-notable. Since the content no longer exists, there is no reason to have a redirect pointing people to that content. Quite a few articles point to the redirect page, but they can easily be unlinked. – PeeJay 00:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. For whatever it may be worth, it was finally removed 16:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC), shortly after Daemonic Kangaroo left Wikipedia. —teb728tc 10:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

DeleteWP:REDLINK if this appears in so many biographies, then it should be a redlink to encourage creating an article -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete It is confusing to click on a link for a publisher and wind up at the top of an article on a football club. Remove the red links, for there is no prospect of recreating the deleted article. —teb728tc 10:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G6 as a redirect left from moving a page created in the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D2, "may cause confusion". WP:CNR from editor to reader space, and it is not a template. Relatively recently created target (10 Feb), this is the result of a page move by User:DGG from template space today, after a WP:CSD#T3) on 19 Feb by nominator. Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:G6 (housekeeping) - redirect left from moving target (which was never a template) to article space; target was created very recently, no useful history, etc. Ivanvector (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Weak refine as {{R to section}}Idiot#Etymology, where its meaning in Ancient Greece is elaborated. I guess it was added because of the discussion at Talk:Idiot/Archive_1#Etymology. My WP search was for "idiot ancient Greece", so perhaps it is better to delete it so other readers' searches don't jump them through the R straight away: but the ety section is section 1, so it is hardly far from the top already. Nothing in reader-facing space links to it. Si Trew (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete as an implausible search term. I can't see it being of use to this project. Tavix | Talk 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget. Nice find, but at proposed target that's XauXaz, and I imagine with these things the intercaps are important, so we should add that and {{R from other capitalization}} this. Where Scrabble board? Si Trew (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Following the links, ****WARNING TAKE CARE IF ON A SLOW LINK, THE NEXT LINK IS 300Kb long**** at User:Emijrp/FirstPages a whole bunch of CamelCase was imported on 15 December 2010. User:Emijrp is still active: @Emijrp: do we still need it? Si Trew (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete The one mention of XuaXaz at Lord of the Trees seems too brief to make this a useful redirect. It sounds like his role in a previous novel, A Feast Unknown, which might make a more logical target if the character is mentioned there. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. BDD, at Lord of The Trees it's to "XauXaz", not "XuaXaz" as you wrote above. I imagine that was just a typo, but I checked in case this was an {{R from misspelling}} and we had been led up a barking tree, hence having done so I note here that XauXaz is red (as are XauXax, Xauxax, Xuaxax and XuaXax, for what it's worth). It's a pity Google no longer has the regular expression search (that I can find, anyway)... Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - XauXaz also gets the same very brief mention at The Mad Goblin (another work in the same series), and by "the same" I mean the words are identical to Lord of the Trees. I'm with BDD in thinking this wouldn't be a useful redirect, and besides which article is the right one to redirect to? I wonder if this is some sort of mojibake for "x-y-z" as in measurement dimensions, but targeting to height is nonsense anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment I'm okay with a Delete if we can't agree which book in the series is the best target for this term.--Lenticel(talk) 01:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Plowback retained earnings" is a made-up phrase, invented with the sole purpose of creating thisredundant content fork which for some reason was redirected rather than deleted. The redirect should be deleted, not only because it's implausible and useless, but also because it confuses the reader as our autocomplete algorithm will display it every time "Plowback" is typed into the search box thus suggesting we have two separate articles on the subject. We don't. For a more elaborate rationale, see the previous discussion which was closed two months ago and apparently resulted in "no consensus:" Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_10#Plowback_retained_earnings. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep per my rationale on the previous discussion, given that there seems to be no chance this phrase could refer to any other notable term, phrase, or subject. Steel1943 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the invented phrase "plowback retained earnings" isn't ambiguous means nothing. We already have Plowback which makes Plowback retained earnings redundant. As for your previous "rationale," it was, in fact, nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion of the redirect's usefulness[2] which contributed nothing of value to the discussion. Consult WP:ITSUSEFUL for more information on why such contributions are to be avoided. If you'd like to argue that the redirect should be kept, you're more than welcome to present an actual argument. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:AADD doesn't always apply to RfDs. In some cases, arguments to avoid at AfD are actually strong at RfD. See WP:RFD#KEEP #5, which explicitly gives "Someone finds [the redirect] useful" as a reason to keep. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:AADD as a whole doesn't always apply to RfDs. However, in this particular case, WP:ITSUSEFUL very much does apply, and that's why I made a reference to it. If we were to accept that simply stating "the redirect is useful" was enough to prove its usefulness and thus prevent its deletion, we could just as well shut RfD down as one disruptive editor with enough free time on his/her hands would have the power to effectively close all RfD discussions as "keep" by making that statement over and over. Common sense would dictate that this simply isn't the way to go. I'm all for keeping useful redirects, but Plowback retained earnings isn't useful. If you believe otherwise, let's hear how it's useful. Making unsubstantiated assertions of the redirect's usefulness, especially in a situation where there have been numerous arguments presented in favor of its deletion, including the policy-based argument that it violates WP:POVNAME in that it fails to "anticipate what readers will type as a first guess," is entirely unhelpful, so as not to say disruptive. If you want the redirect to be kept, let's hear what makes it so useful that we need to retain it despite all the problems with it that were indicated by the nominator. And no, simply stating "because it's useful" won't do the trick. I must say that I find your interpretation of WP:RFD#KEEP #5 at least as bizarre as I find the weight you seem to give to it, seeing how it's neither a policy nor a guideline. Do you honestly believe that what WP:RFD#KEEP #5 means is "as soon as someone says "it's useful," the discussion should be closed and the redirect kept?" If that's the case then perhaps it's high time we reworded that inconsequential piece of adviceit as in its current form it's apparently a source of confusion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I was Keep with Steel1943 when I came to this relisting, but I think better to add at the DAB and R there.

Reason for keeping: "Plowback" (also → Retained earnings) is, I think, is something specific to the U. S. (and not just U. S. English but the country); but in British English were it anything it would be ploughback): since that is red, it tends to show this is a U. S. specific term. And since the term exists and directs people to where they probably would like to go, it would be absurd to do anything else with it.

Reason for DABbing: Ploughshare or Plowshare is just about possible, I suppose. (I note with some disdain that the lede says "international English" instead of "British English"... as if "international English" means anything: see WP:ENGVAR).

Isiah 2:4 has it in KJV "they will beat their swords into ploughshares" (of course variously translated), and perhaps the difference between a plowback vested in stocks and shares and a plowshare is something genuinely ambiguous that we should care about. Hence I suggest the DAB: it may not be always what someone is expecting to find, and from a DAB this meaning would be only one click away. Si Trew (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Plowback" isn't ambiguous, it has only one meaning—that of reinvested profits.[3][4][5] Retargeting it as you suggest is thus out of the question unless you produce a reliable source that corroborates your claims of the word's ambiguity. Your comment presents an argument in favor of keeping Plowback, which isn't necessary as Plowback isn't being considered for deletion, but fails to present a valid argument for keeping Plowback retained earnings, which is being considered for deletion, and as such it should be ignored by the closing administrator. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per my previous rationale. To expand: when a corporation earns more in revenue in a fiscal period then it spends in the same period, it has net income. Net income is either distributed to the corporation's owners as a dividend or kept for the corporation's use as retained earnings (note: this is quite simplified). These are proper business terms. The act of taking net income for retained earnings has become known as "plow back" (verb; versus "pay out" for dividends), and the amount itself has become known as a "plowback" (noun; compare "payout" for dividends). Those aren't proper business terms but are common enough; they even come into colloquial names for business performance measures such as "plowback ratio" (properly earnings retention ratio, the inverse of dividend payout ratio). The phrase "plowback retained earnings" is doublespeak nonsense; it's striving to invent a definition where there is none, and as I said in a different discussion, we shouldn't keep redirects from business terms which are so close to being entirely made up. See also Department of Redundancy Department. Ivanvector (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I can see both sides of both sides here. @Iaritmioawp:: If you dislike my refering to the R at plowback, then I put the same point to you: can you produce an RS for the entire phrase "Plowback retained earnings" then? I can't, so in that case, it should go Delete. But since R's don't have to be RS but only helpful, the point is moot: and since Plowback goes there, and why I mentioned it, there seems little chance of confusion and it can go Keep. Howewer, I could be swayed by Ivanvector's RS suggesting that if it meant anything in its own right, it would be almost the opposite of what "plowback" means in the fiscal sense, in which case anyway it could be kept as an {{R from opposite}}, but that would be stretching it as a WP:NEOLOGISM, and that says those often go Delete. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me. My point was not that "plowback" and "retained earnings" are opposites. They are synonyms (the opposite of opposites!) with a possible subtle difference in usage, since plowback can also be a verb. But your confusion backs up my point: this is confusing and should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Plow back (@Ivanvector: "...has become known as "plow back") is red, but plough back is a very stubby economics article (just a WP:DICDEF and not a good one). Both should probably be R'd to whatever Plowback redirects to (currently Retained earnings), but I'm disinclined boldly to do so while this discussion is in progress. I'd also be inclined to add those to this nomination, but that would be out of order (I assume) after the relisting. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have redirected it; thanks for pointing it out. It is clearly the same thing as plowback, just a UK English spelling. Neither are mentioned at retained earnings but our finance articles are a bit of a horrible mess. Ivanvector (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The first time I heard of this term was in an American English book and I had no idea what it meant (even though I could guess what the correctBritish spelling would be, the term itself was not common in the UK and I am not sure is even now: I think in Br. Eng. it is generally called something different. A bit odd, then, that the term was in Br. Eng. but not in US Eng: but the Rs there tend to indicate they've been created ad hoc. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure whether this should be converted to a dab page, but at present this does not seem like an appropriate redirect. While many think of dinner as the most main meal of the day, this redirect makes it seem as if it is the only main meal of the day is dinner. JZCL 18:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. At least a DAB. Off the top of my head, Alan Bennett made an autobiographical TV essay called Dinner at Noon (also an essay in his Writing Home – surprised these haven't articles or R's at least) which is rather about this (well, social pretentions on what people call the main meal of the day) and George Orwell mentions in The Road to Wigan Pier that it is natural that miners on shiftwork have their main meal of the day when they come home, whatever time of day that is. So I think a decent kinda cultural article could be made out of this. Tea culture#Tea as a meal is a possible entry on that DAB. Si Trew (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - per Si, this is probably a reasonable topic for an article, if someone cares to write one. It shouldn't redirect to where it does currently because it's misleading or just incorrect, and I think a dab is weak because the titles aren't actually ambiguous. Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Ivanvector (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind starting to flesh out an article (I don't say "oh we should have an article" unless I am prepared to make one), but necessarily it would be UK centric if there were no other contributors but me. A Wikipedia search for "breakfast, lunch and dinner" is somewhat fruitful, and the All-day breakfast can probably sneak in as a "See also". I suppose Hardtack, as a meal taken on the Main Sea (i.e. Atlantic Ocean, cf. Spanish Main), would be too punny; but we do have main course which say in the United States and parts of Canada it is called an "entrée" (again, something genuinely a false friend as in Br. Eng. it means a starter course). Si Trew (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete to encourage article creation OR at least weak retarget to main course as the closest plausible synonym. --Lenticel(talk) 00:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

RetargetMeal#Common meals. Not oppose to delete for new article but would really need a lot more content than there for a spinout. Sorry Lenticel but Main course is just not the same level as "main meal" (only part of a meal). 野狼院ひさしu/t/c 05:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per Hisashiyarouin (the Japanese lettered guy above); otherwise disambiguate between breakfast,lunch,supper ; the main meal is different for different people and different cultures. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I disagree. "Main meal" has cultural significance and I think that needs to be said, Hisashi-san's suggestion was good but wrong. I think more important is the cultural significance of the main meal of the day.

W. H. Auden has a bit about it, for example. But my view necessarily would be a bit UK centric. Si Trew (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The main meal does not necessarily mean dinner, the main meal may be breakfast. Culturally significant meals are also several different ones, such as breakfast, the first meal. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Convert page to a soft redirect to Wikt:akranis (in other words, {{Wiktionary redirect|akranis}}.) I'm not seeing any encyclopedic information for this term per search engines, but the Wiktionary entry does exist. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My alternate opinion to converting to a Wiktionary redirect is Delete. This spelling has no strong connection I can find (on search engines) with the subject in Akranes, and thus the redirect should probably be removed altogether. Steel1943 (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Akranes as a likely misspelling. A redirect to wiktionary is not really helpful in this case. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete with WP:NPA in mind. Looking at creator's history, it seems the purpose of this was to call User:Akranis a nerd. Tipped off by his last edit before this one to Amathev (now to Art) to Japanophile, which was started by User:Chrodyn redirecting to Homosexuality and presumably with similar connotations to User:Amathev (i.e. calling them gay). 野狼院ひさしu/t/c 05:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per Oiyarbepsy; Wiktionary is highly inappropriate, since it is a non-English word that Wiktionary is defining. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I just did a Google search for "Akranis" and couldn't find any connection to Akranes. I feel like if it's a plausible misspelling, then someone has had to have used it, but I couldn't find any. I'm willing to change my vote if someone finds an example of someone using Akranis to mean Akranes. Otherwise, I'm falling more in line with Hisashiyarouin's rationale. Tavix | Talk 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget, then. Gsearching for "Akranes, Iceland" gave me these (amongst other bad matches):

"Names in the Game". apnewsarchive.com. Associated Press. 22 August 1993. Retrieved 27 February 2015. Despite free admission for women, only about 4,000 people attended a European Champion's Cup match between Albanian champion Partizani and Akranis of Iceland.

We do also have Akrani → Dhadgaon, but as a place name it can't really be made plural (and hatnoting the two is probably unnecesary). Akrane is red, so there is no confusion there. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Nonmatching title pointing to a disambiguation page. We don't do this. If Table-lookup synthesis has a meaning, it should point to that meaning; if it is ambiguous, it should be a disambiguation page, not point to a different page with a markedly different title. bd2412T 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a deletion request, but a discussion request. If this is to be converted, do it now, to address the many incoming links. bd2412T 00:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry for my confusion. Please wait for preparation of new article. By the way, can I replace the content field on the page from "#REDIRECT Wavetable" to new article ? --Clusternote (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You can replace the whole thing - once it is no longer a redirect, this discussion is moot. bd2412T 01:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In case you've never played it, the priests in Age of Empires do a chant that sounds like "Wololo" when they attempt to convert enemy units. But it probably doesn't make for a good redirect, because that's not mentioned at the target article, and it probably never will be. BDD (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete It's just a meme that has no notability outside the game. It's also the term no in Kalenjin languages. Damn it. I wanted to vote "Convert to something" :(. --Lenticel(talk) 03:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Swahili gospel singer Rose Mhando has a song by this name, according to Google, but none of her work is mentioned at the stub we have on her. I don't know if it is related. Delete to avoid confusion and/or to encourage article creation. Ivanvector (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete - meaningless redirect to incorrect topic. The games referred to in the title of this redir were not play by mail, and they already have articles that anyone can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Delete highly misleading. There are several text based computer RPGs based on Star Trek. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D2, "may cause confusion". That being said, off the top of my head, I seem to remember that "Israel and the Palestinian territories" was exactly how British Telecom ( [sic]) used to list it for the International Direct Dialling code around 1980, since presumably, telecommunications cables are no respecters of political borders (and I have a good reason to remember that has nothing to do with either Israel or Palestine). But barring me obtaining about a 1980 copy of the book of STD codes supplied by Post Office Telephones, I'd have a hard job verifying this feat of memory. And even if I did, the term was obviously politically loaded – or an attempt to make it not so – even then. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I came across this redirect from the "foreign relations of the Americas" template, and was pretty surprised when there wasn't actually an article on the topic. It should probably be deleted per WP:REDLINK unless there's a better suited target? Tavix | Talk 01:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I wouldn't think of continents as having foreign relations—they don't, at least in the sense that countries do. But I suppose you could discuss international relations in the context of a continent. There's an equivalent redirect for Asia, which I hope you won't mind my adding to this nomination. There's no similar redirect for North America, Africa, Asia, or Oceania. Foreign relations of Europe redirects to Foreign relations of the European Union, which is probably cromulent. I'll also inform WikiProject International relations. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep? - Please refer me to the ruling on "self-sourcing items" like this. It is on the Internet and has something to contribute to the idea of the "periodical". Must there first be an accolade of this contribution from a third party, preferably a mainstream journalism outlet? I was wondering, if a video threatening the bombing of the city of Barcelona is to appear on a terrorist group's website, would that video qualify as a valid "self-sourced material" for the creation of a section in the article "Bomb threats", or must a third party—preferably someone from the Washington Post perhaps—first report on it? --Bagoto (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bagoto: My pleasure. Redirects do not have to be reliably sourced, but since the article no longer has any content which would make this redirect make sense, either we have to send it somewhere else or delete it. I think it is unlikely that it goes where I suggested because it's not mentioned at that target. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This redirects to KHON-TV, a VHF TV station, which is on digital channel 8, virtual subchannels 2.1 and 2.2; there is no evidence of "93" being anything other than a branding for marketing purposes (which the article at KHON-TV#Hawaii's CW lists as obsolete) or a digital cable converter position on one system. K7L (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The use of categories to sort North American television stations by real or virtual channel numbering is deprecated, with multiple deletion votes either currently in progress or already closed as "delete and listify". The category is therefore not a rationale to keep this particular redirect. We normally classify stations by the frequency and subchannel numbering actually going out as an over-the-air signal (as the cable slots may differ on every cable system, plus fibre, plus dish...) and really don't care that one particular CATV operator on one digital box put this on 93 if it's VHF 8 (subchannel 2.2) it's not 93 OTA. K7L (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. But if someone came across "Channel 93" in an old book or whatnot, what would they want to find? One of those lists or categories (I presumed there was some rationale for having "TV stations" and "branded TV stations" as separate cats, but didn't look into their talk pages beyond noting they existed, when I searched). They probably wouldn't expect to jump to KHON-TV unless they happened to live in Hawaii. So that's a good argument for deletion to let the search engine do it. In the UK where I have lived most of my life, TV stations were never referred to by their frequency, always just by ident, for the reasons you state (different frequencies in different locations). Radio stations similarly, although some do use their frequency or range of frequencies in their station ident (BBC Radio 4 for example calls longhand as "On 92 to 95 FM, 198 Longwave, on digital radio, and online, this is BBC Radio 4"). Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Although just now (listening via the Internet) it just called "This is BBC Radio 4", just before the pips at 22.00 GMT. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with using cable or subscription TV channel numbering for anything is that cable operators like to deliberately move things to the wrong channel. As one example, a North American VHF TV station usually wouldn't be on its over-the-air channel on cable in its own home town for technical reasons: an issue known as ingress where a poorly-shielded old telly would pick up over-the-air signal itself. That direct signal would arrive before the cable signal as multipath ghosting; in the days of analogue TV, one could see two superimposed images. Go to some other cable system an hour down the road and the station would be back on its original OTA frequency. The over-the-air channel might be useful for a purely-local station, but a cable channel on one system? No. K7L (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Weak Keep - The subchannel was at one time publicly identified as channel 93. This should be addressed when the categories are listified. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A result of my WP:RM, considering the other Zero in comics was also a Marvel Comics character. However, this creates a possibly ambiguous redirect, as the old page now refers to Kenji Uedo exclusively. Perhaps disambiguate? J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 19:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete – A discussion about the target article (Ag-gag) is underway. The discussion is leaning towards making "Anti-whistleblower legislation" (or another similar name) the target. See Talk:Ag-gag#RFC_regarding_article_title. Rather than setting the stage for creator's desired result, I think the discussion should conclude, and then needed redirects can be created. – S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep - since articles can be moved over redirects pointing to them, it makes complete sense to create a redirect ahead of a proposed move for a legitimate alternate term, without regard to how the discussion concludes. This is common practice. There are no reasons, and none were given, why it might be preferable to wait for the discussion to conclude. Nominator and I have a history of difficulty in the past, and I had been told he had chosen to abide by a voluntary interaction ban. EllenCT (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply – the RFC has this title linked in the discussion, only it shows up as a blue link. Deleting this redirect will allow editors to clearly see that the new titles being discussed are not yet created. The blue links improperly invite them to click into the very article being discussed. – S. Rich (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete No reason why a topic this broad should redirect to a much narrower topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete – A discussion about the target article (Ag-gag) is underway. The discussion is leaning towards making "Anti-whistleblower legislation" (or another similar name) the target. See Talk:Ag-gag#RFC_regarding_article_title. Rather than setting the stage for creator's desired result, I think the discussion should conclude, and then needed redirects can be created. – S. Rich (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep - since articles can be moved over redirects pointing to them, it makes complete sense to create a redirect ahead of a proposed move for a legitimate alternate term, without regard to how the discussion concludes. This is common practice. There are no reasons, and none were given, why it might be preferable to wait for the discussion to conclude. Nominator and I have a history of difficulty in the past, and I had been told he had chosen to abide by a voluntary interaction ban. The nominator's speedy deletion request under CSD G6 ("non-controversial") was completely inappropriate.EllenCT (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply – the RFC has this title linked in the discussion, only it shows up as a blue link. Deleting this redirect will allow editors to clearly see that the new titles being discussed are not yet created. The blue links improperly invite them to click into the very article being discussed. – S. Rich (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete No reason why a topic this broad should redirect to a much narrower topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment – the fact that this re-direct exists was mentioned in the RfC discussion about renaming Ag-gag. See [6]. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

DABify' this as an R to the one above. Siamese twins, should be combined listing. Si Trew (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Relisting comment: I'm combining two very similar nominations with very similar discussions here. If someone could draft what a disambiguation page would look like here, that could be very helpful. And which title would be preferred for that page?Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment for BDD about history of this request: There has been a RfC underway at Talk:Ag-gag#RFC regarding article title about renaming the 'target' article (Ag-gag). While the discussion was underway one of the commenting editors created these 2 redirects.This was a problematic undertaking. First, it served to complicate what may be an eventual outcome – renaming of the article to one of the redirect targets. But these redirects served to confuse the RfC discussion; i.e., one of the RfC commenting editors has mentioned the 2 possible titles, saying they redirect to Ag-gag. These 2 redirects should be deleted so that the RfC can proceed in an orderly fashion. One the RfC is resolved, then needed redirects can be created. (Also, these 2 redirects were deleted under a G6 Speedy CSD and then again created by the same RfC commentator.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC) And to answer your last question, the very title of the re-titled article is what the RfC is about. 05:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Presumably a neologism about Barack Obama's NCAA bracket choices, this term isn't mentioned in the text of the target article. It's used in a title of two of the references, both of which just support the vague statement that "the concept of bracketology has been applied to areas outside of basketball". "Baracketology" isn't a concept that can be discussed encyclopedically, at least at this point, so the redirect should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep. This term has gotten much media attention considering the coincidence of Barack Obama's name and the fact that he's a known basketball fan. There should perhaps be a subsection devoted to this term on the bracketology article, but the redirect is a valid one. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

SportsOnEarth is owned by Major League Baseball.[10] Since the subject is about basketball and not baseball, this wouldn't be promotional, non-independent coverage either. This seems reliable. A basketball article by Will Leitch from SportOnEarth has also been quoted by The New York Times.[11].—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Backwards run argument structure until reels the mind. How about you quote them rather than my doing your homework?

If it's not to do with basketball, it is irrelevant.

If it is, how about quoting it in full, rather than me doing your homework for you:

"N.B.A.’s Move Is Not Little, but It’s Late". The New York Times. 30 April 2014.|accessdate= requires |url= (help), does not mention "Bracket" or "Obama", let alone "Bracketology" or "Baracketology"; I fail to see its relevance. If it was to argue that the New York Times is RS, I think we already had established that.

I don't know the plural of non sequitur, (hint: I do) but you have two of 'em. Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"... doing your homework for you": Apologies @Si Trew, but it's not my norm to provide full citations in discussions. You'll find them in my article space work, where I usually provide archived links as well. Being that it's not compulsory, I'll leave it for any gnomes who might find mere external links to be inadequate. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete', with BDD. The only references I see, reliable or no, are to Barack-etology with the hyphen: If it were to redirect anywhere, it should be to there: but tellingly that is red. There is no reference, RS or otherwise, to this being even a neologism (although noun fusion, i.e. welding the nouns and after polishing out the hyphen, is common in English, but it takes time to polish, and this hasn't had the time. Not so much a neologism as probably a one-off phrase, I forget the technical term, nonce word? WP:NOTDICT. Si Trew (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICT applies to articles that define words, while Baracketology is a redirect of a subtopic to its larger related topic. Per the guideline WP:R#KEEP, redirects should be kept when they "aid searches on certain terms." Obama's relationship with bracketology is clear from the above sources, and worthy of a blubr or two in the article. It's an article content issue, not a redirect deletion issue, whether the article should specifically mention the neologism; however, there is no harm in it being a plausible search term that redirects to the larger related topic. Obama's relation to bracketology can be discussed in the article without using the neologism. As for the redirect, no criteria in the guideline WP:R#DELETE calls for deletion here.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Then discuss it in the article. Since it is not, you haven't a leg to stand on.

criterion is singular. How often do I have to insist on this? Even Wiktionary says so. Si Trew (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And by inventing and thus defining a word no reliable sources, the only leg you have to stand on is that a redirect is not an article. But then it goes as usual as "not mentioned at target" by various of the WP:RFD#DELETE rules but on the whole by consensus, I think, (e.g. WP:RFD#D2 "The redirect may cause confusion"), that a term not mentioned at any target cannot be retargeted thereto and thus should be deleted, to encourage the creation of the article. Old Shakespeare said somewhere, we think tis sport to see the engineer hoist with his own petard. To quote another RfD reg "No reasons have been proposed". Care for any keep reasons to propose? Si Trew (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Set out my stall

Since this is a linguistic argument I bring my linguistic arms to the grounds ready to aim and fire. But it is clearly not exactly a neologism but a nonce word that has been repeated in papers the day after. It is something that lexicographers would note in case it caught on, to give it first reference, but has no place in an encyclopaedia when.

There is no usage of it in its hyphenated or unhyphenated form in any of the refs given

One of the refs is, to my mind, unreliable, and RS insists on multiple' reliable sources: we have none giving the term

Further references given were given with rather good faith that on my part I looked them up. More fool you, I looked them up. The term is not in any of them.

Keep per Bagumba and expand the target article to mention the President's picks, which is apparently a notable annual event at least in the eyes of sports nerds. A single sentence should suffice. There are multiple reliable sources, such as Bleacher Report, ABC Australia, Chicago Tribune, and this silly Time bit which isn't about basketball but is certainly about the President. Yes, they don't all use the name "Baracketology" or put a hyphen in it, and it is most certainly a neologism, but it's a neologism for an apparently notable thing, thus it is a valid redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Relisting comment: Looks like this is leaning keep. Could someone add a sentence into the target page, or whatever is going to happen? With March Madness approaching, this may become easier to do.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedied. Peridon (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Left over redirect from moving a newly created page (today) under an incorrect title. No incoming links, and not useful for navigation. I will notify the page's creator to look in the new location. Ivanvector (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of ethnic slurs#E. Since the term doesn't seem to be discussed in relation to italic type, this makes the most sense. I'm not entirely sure what Si was advocating here. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I use this a lot. I created it in Jan 2010. It was redirected to derogatory names#e or some such, when my original text of 2010 says it is not derogatory when used as a typographic term. So I redirect it now to the term for which it is slang. It is not derog. and I have a good friend who once met an Italian. Collins, OED and Cambridge (offline, not the online dictionaries) list "eyetie" as being used as sl. for italic (font), Wiktionary doesn't, only lists the derog. sense. Si Trew (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So, then, must be Delete per WP:RFD#D3, ""The redirect is offensive or abusive", by its own count. You can't have it both ways. It's offensive therefore should be deleted by the policy at the top of this very page. No matter that it may direct people to lists of abusive words, or that I made an article to indicate its use in a way that is not offensive but couldn't source it: since it's offensive, delete it. Or change D3 to what you mean by "offensive". It may be different from what I mean by it. Si Trew (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to List of ethnic slurs#E or disambiguate if suitable sources can be found for the typeface usage. Si Trew seems to have access to offline sources; I couldn't find this usage in sources available online. I think that WP:RFD#D3 doesn't apply here - the ethnic slur is reliably sourceable and falls under WP:NOTCENSORED. Ivanvector (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Further note because I thought of a better example: this would be WP:RFD#D3 (offensive) if the target was Italians. Ivanvector (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Please delete. Theresienbad is a spa place in Vienna, while Terezín (Theresienstadt) is a former military fortress and a Nazi concentration camp in Northern Bohemia. Feťour (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete Mostly because not mentioned in target. The German name is Theresienstadt, which is quite far from Theresienbad. 野狼院ひさしu/t/c 15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete as WP:RFD#D5, "The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting apples to oranges". @Ivanvector:, although that target mentions it, it first introduces it without comment on where or what it is, and the other two mentions are links (so we'd end up with circular references). So I am not sure it's really a very satisfactory target. Si Trew (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitely it shouldn't target to where it is, but D5 can be fixed by retargeting. There is a very brief bit on what the spa is, but that's what we've got. The circular references can be unlinked. Ivanvector (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I was about to close this as retarget, because you definitely have the strongest argument, inasmuch as we should avoid deletion if practical. But Theresienbad's mentions at Meidling are really without context. This may have been a consequence of edit wars or just general changes, but the very first mention of Theresienbad (which isn't linked in that instance) seems to assume the idea has already been introduced. WP:REDLINK deletion could still be an option, or Meidling could be tweaked so that a reader could learn something about Theresienbad from it. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy retarget as above. Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Now I am on BDD's line. An Englishman cannot draw a line in the sand without blurring it. Churchill I think, but might be Orwell. Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: tut, tut. Ivanvector may have the stronger argument, but can't have the strongest since there were only two of us: at least until you pitched in. By the way thanks for the good luck about my new job, it's going well, but unfortunately less time to work on WP. I have a nice article to do for a Hungarian/British engineer a bit of a pioneer in telly in the 30s, that a lot of info has been released by the British, all very James Bond stuff with the secrecy malarkey before WWII, so I am going to scrub that into a stub article I hope. Made a start but will be hard work. Si Trew (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: I think you're right. I'll see if I can find anything. Ivanvector (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an extensive article in German: de:Theresienbad. It would be hopeless for me to try to translate it but it seems like we should be able to write something about it here. Ivanvector (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

My German is definitely not good enough to translate the whole thing, but with Google's help, I'll take a stab at this this weekend. By all means, if anyone else wants to try, go for it. I'd appreciate notification if so, however, so we don't end up duplicating effort. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to common stock per 70.50, where the first sentence of lede says 'The terms "voting share" or "ordinary share" are also used frequently in other parts of the world': that is elaborated in section common stock#Ordinary shares. (Ordinary share redirects to that article but not to that section.)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Relisting comment: It indeed looks like the redirection of Voting stock has stuck. How might that affect the outcome here?Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That was somewhat of a joke as I am sure you imagine, most of mine have a serious point behind them. There is rather a tendency here to claim anyone who has set foot on American soil as American, so one gets "English-born American engineer" even though he spent all but his dying days in England. There is something of a US bias here and I am here to counter it and restore the British Empire as the fearless defender against hanging, drawing, quartering, racist abuse, and putting taps the wrong way round and driving on the wrong side of the road, etc.

As usual, a joke with a serious point: with the casual use of these words they become very US centric, and actually did get my back up. I know Wikipedia is hosted in virginia and I get my tobacco from black slaves picking it off the cotton trees in virginia, I am smart like that. Why tobacco grows on cotton trees I have never discovered but they have gin made from cotton (cotton gin) and that makes it grow and then I guess it grows from that. The world is not the United States. All that really needs doing is to reword the lede mildly so it doesn't seem so. Si Trew (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

F'rexample, we have it at another, Stocks and shares → Stock, not Shares → Share (finance). Presumably that is argued over and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and all that, WP:ENGVAR, and that is fine. (Though I wonder what the difference is between a Stock (finance) → Stock and a Share (finance)). The thing is, if it seems that the rest of the world is not the United States, i.e. who gives a shit, you're not the United States, fuck off, that is not the impression I should like Wikipedia to be giving out: especially if it is done accidentally rather than intentionally (intentional ones are much easier to deal with). Si Trew (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Clue: A stock and a share are the same thing. Si Trew (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There are various actors named Charles Gordon listed in IMDb,[12] but even the best of them (Gordon II) isn't worthy of an article, so it's pretty pointless to redirect to a list with no actors on it. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was deleted by RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Procedural close. Converted to article. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D5 'makes no sense', WP:RFD#D2 'confusion'. Not mentioned at target, even though User:Chandler says it is, that would be WP:CRYSTAL if it were, but last edit at target was at 28 March 2014. Edits before that were vandalism reverted by bot and GF admin. Which leads me to presume, unless I am an idiot (I am), films for 2015 must have been added before March 2014, which seems unlikely but seems to be the case. I can't be bothered to trawl the history back farther. Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. The info is added as content below the RfD tag at the redirect, not at the target. I suppose theoretically the RfD tag should be removed and let it stand as an article, then, but that would be rather unsatisfactory for everyone, I imagine. Si Trew (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Self-referential redirect created by User:Diskis. It's tagged as an {{R from member}}, so apparently User:Diskis is/was a dishwasher? Either way, I couldn't find any information relating the two. Tavix | Talk 02:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a relic from the early days of Wikipedia. It was actually created as an essay back in 2001. It's quite a fascinating read, even though it is entirely non-encyclopedic. Unless someone feels strongly about preserving that essay, it is probably best to Delete both because I can't find any articles that use the term "naive relativism". Tavix | Talk 00:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to relativism. As a CamelCase relic it shouldn't be deleted, and there may be useful history although this seems to have been copy-pasted from some other source ("LarrysText" = Larry Sanger?) which was wikilinked but seems to have long since vanished. There is also useful history at Naive relativism about truth which also targets to truth but seems to more accurately reflect relativism. Also, relativism seems itself to be about truth, so having "about truth" in the title is just redundant. Ivanvector (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that might be a good argument if it was just "RelativismAboutTruth" or some variant, but "naïve/naive" isn't mentioned once in the article on relativism. The fact that we are discussing the term "naïve relativism," which Si Trew pointed out is redlinked, changes that argument. If there were any articles that discussed this topic, I'd love to retarget, but until then, any such retargetting is unuseful and/or unhelpful. Tavix | Talk 20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that naïve relativism is a thing or was meant to be; it's more like, here's an essay about how relativism is naïve. But I'm stretching. We do have naïve realism but it seems to be completely different; not so much about truth, and basically the opposite concept to relativism anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have found LarrysText from a very old Wikipedia archive. Indeed this is part of a number of lectures Larry Sanger wrote out and read to his Ohio State students in 1998, and which went on to contribute some of the first content to Wikipedia. Others which are still around are TheoriesOfTruth, TheJustificationOfTheState, CommonSenseAndTheDiallelus, and DefinitionOfLogic (all now redirects, of course). They're not encyclopedic and probably unlikely search terms, but they are part of the history of the project and I think they're not hurting anything by staying around. Ivanvector (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that treatment. Ivanvector (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

BDD, if this is something that you or another admin was willing to take on, I think it'd be a cool project to give that treatment to the entire catalog of Larry's Text. Tavix | Talk 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete as WP:RFD#D2, "confusion", WP:RFD#D5, "makes no sense". Water is not an organic compound because it has no carbon; neither is it a mineral except by stretching the definition that it is extracted from mines, which indeed it is but not for its commercial value. (We have articles about specific mine floods but not one in general; also Category:Mining disasters but not a subcat for those caused by H2O). Si Trew (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I can't really see where this would really be a redirect term that anyone would consciously type into the search box. I have no true opinion on whether or not ice is a mineral (although at least one RS says that it is) or if it'd warrant a redirect labeling it as such, but this just isn't a feasible redirect search term. Tokyogirl79(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete, because water is not an organic compound. ApparatumLover (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete criterion WP:A3 as the article was originally tagged; page creator removed the tag inappropriately. Page served as nothing more than a placeholder for a spam link to a commercial website. Lankiveil redirected to ice in good faith, however the reference to ice being considered a mineral was also sourced to that website, and is thus not reliable. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete, when I redirected this in 2008 it probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but obviously it is not a plausible search term and should go. Lankiveil(speak to me) 23:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

I just recently retargeted this redirect to Fifty Shades of Grey#Origin as fan fiction, but I don't believe that target is helpful. (The only vague mention of the redirect's subject is in the last paragraph of the section.) Per some research, I found that it seems that this was to be the possible name of a porn parody of this movie, but due to a lawsuit, never saw the light of day. Might as well not redirect readers trying to find something that is not mentioned at its target in enough detail. Steel1943 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep, but change redirect to Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)#Pornographic_adaptation_lawsuit. The porn does exist and it was released, but it wasn't out on the shelves for very long because of the lawsuit. (It was out long enough for it to hit the torrent sites, though.) I'd argue that this would be better as a redirect to Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)#Pornographic_adaptation_lawsuit, where it is discussed in far more depth. The thing about the porn is that although Smash tried to make a legal claim based on the fanfiction origins, ultimately all of the news about the lawsuit centered around the official film since the movie companies were the ones going after Smash. It received more than enough coverage to where I think it'd be a reasonable redirect to the subsection in the film article. Originally this did redirect to the main article, but that was before the film itself actually had an article and before the content was merged into the film's article with this edit. Tokyogirl79(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This redirect was declined for speedy deletion in 2008, but I'm having some trouble understanding its usefulness. I'm not finding this battle referred to as "battle ice" in any references I can find. Also, this term sounds more like it should represent the use of ice in battle as a whole, possibly how it is/was used as a projectile, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: From my research into possible related existing topics on Wikipedia to retarget this redirect, I found Ice#Other uses to essentially be the only option, but the concept of ice used in battle is used there only once, and only for one specific event. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree with this if it were Ice battle or something. But "Battle Ice"? It definitely implies ice used for battling, or perhaps a command for the listener to combat ice. --BDD (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh... that's very interesting, and maybe closer than the general idea of military operations on ice, but still, would you refer to it as "battle ice" in any way? Do you talk about regular warships being made out of "battle steel"? --BDD (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, "battle steel" is used informally in non-technical material, such as in popular fiction involving warships ... -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Could also be a romantic/poetic term for a sword. Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - partial match, potentially misleading. I see "battle ice" come up in local interest stories about people (firefighters, rescue workers, farmers, etc.) "battling ice" to put out fires, rescue cattle from a frozen lake, and such. Not encyclopedic. I also considered Battle of the Blades or Blades of Steel but not close enough. Ivanvector (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete I'm still not convinced we have anything, or really there even is anything, that would typically be referred to as "Battle Ice". --BDD (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing about this darts player from the 1980s/90s (or any female darts player, in fact) is found on the target page. An article might eventually be created, but in the meantime it's a very misleading redirect where a redlink would make more sense to readers. Zeyes (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:REDLINK, because redlinks encourage article creation, and the fact that this redirect is unhelpful. Tavix | Talk 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Once upon a time, this redirect targeted Third World. However, I could not find the term exactly as stated in the redirect's title in the article, though there are several instances of the word "bloc". Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Third World. All research I am finding about this term concludes that the two terms are synonymous. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete unrelated to target. Corporation is a general topic unrelated to any particular blocs. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget or Dab per Si Trew, there is no reason for deletion here when there are plausible targets. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Relisting comment:Third World seems to be the best option, but the phrase isn't used there at all. Relisting in hopes of clarifying.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Bandung Conference per Si Trew's suggestion, which has the correct focus and enough content to capture several possible interpretations of what a reader might actually be seeking via Afro-Asian Bloc. DABifying various articles (such as AALCO and the aforementioned AARDO) that focus on African-Asian relations but are only (at best) marginally related to the idea of a "bloc" might well only confuse further. Zeyes (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Weak delete, but not opposed to dabifying. I can see the intent of this being synonymous with the Third World, but that also appears very misleading. The great majority of Asia, at least by land mass, was not part of the Third World. Some of these other topics could be referred to with the term "Afro-Asian", but not really "Afro-Asian Bloc", IMO, so I'd rather leave this to search results. I'm not sure how likely a search term it is anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Relisting comment: Steel1943's suggestion is interesting, so I'm adding the similar redirect here and hoping to get a bit more discussion. I know that "secular progressive" is a general epithet used by the American political right for the American political left. Culture Warrior may have coined the phrase; I'm not sure. It may also be the most prominent work to use the phrase.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hey, I was engaging in what I call talk page archaeology (something I've been meaning to write up sometime), and I found that "secular-progressives" was taken to AfD back in December 2006. It was closed as merge to Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), but the closing admin wisely just redirected instead of waiting for someone to merge. Since it doesn't appear that a merge ever took place, deletion is an option. I'm not saying it's necessarily the right one, but it need not be taken off the table. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget all to Culture Warrior#The Secular Progressive Movement, and remove the resulting self-redirects. O'Reilly clearly invented this: a "secular progressive" is anyone with different religious ("secular" vs. O'Reilly's Christian) or political ("progressive" vs. O'Reilly's conservative) views than O'Reilly's own "traditional" viewpoint. It is misleading to suggest that he meant progressivism exactly. Ivanvector (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, no articles link to any of these redirects. Keeping them as redirects to O'Reilly's article discourages someone trying to create an article about this conservative talking point as though it's a real political movement. Ivanvector (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I have created Secular-progressives, and have added it to this nomination. (I also linked the phrase in BDD's comment above so that other editors can see the connection.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment, while many of the top hits for the term in books are to O'Reilly's book, and to several books published by self-publish publishers (this not reliable sources) or to iUniverse (another self-publisher), there are other usages of the word such as:

So while O'Reilly may have repopularized the term, it appears to have been used before O'Reilly resurrected it and perhaps changed the popular definition of it to one more closely resembling his usage. Therefore, it could be argued that it can be its own subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it would have to be, yeah. Redirecting to progressivism just doesn't work. Secularism and progressivism in the United States may have a lot of overlap right now, but that wasn't always the case and may not be in the future. And even today, there are secular conservatives and religious progressives. If those sources discuss movements that were "secular-progressive" by design or intent, we may have something there. If they're just movements that happened to be secular and progressive, it would probably be synthesis. It's sort of a fine distinction. Does that make sense? --BDD (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This page was created as part of a pattern of disruptive editing, in a system-gaming attempt to "rescue" the article customary stone. The term "legal stone" exists only in expressions such as "The only legal stone in the UK now is (14lbs)". It is not a plausible search term (it would be probably be called a "statutory stone"). The various facts about the different values of "stones" are covered in the stone (unit) article. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep The phrase legal stone appears in numerous works which I came across while browsing sources for the article customary stone, which is a contrasting concept. It made sense to cover them together and so I created a redirect. Here's an example from Flax and Its Products in Ireland, "By some singular perversity, flax is generally sold by a stone (illegally so called) of 16 lbs., while the farmer probably pays for the scutching by the legal stone of 14 lbs., or by an old-fashioned weight of 24 lbs., called the Scotch stone." The word scutching is new to me but I find that we have an article for it: scutching. Such terms may be archaic now but Wikipedia covers historical topics as well as recentist stuff like bromance and there's plenty of room for it all. Redirects are cheap and so I'm not seeing the problem here. Andrew D. (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguate to the legal-defined measurement unit of "stone", the legal practice of "stoning", the legal documents written on stones, such as the Stele of Hammurabi -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguate as above. Nothing links to it at the moment. Without prejudice, I've made a (not very good) draft at Draft:Legal stone. Si Trew (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The AfD for Customary stone closed 12 February (today) with deletion as the result. Nobody at that discussion pointed out this concurrent discussion. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete It's a bit misleading as is, since the target article says there wasn't a legal definition of stone. And I can only make any of the alternatives actually called "legal stone" with some really circuitous thinking. Like, "The Code of Hammurabi was written on rock. This 'legal stone' governed the people of Babylon..." In cases like this, where you can only string together some concepts that have something to do with law and stone, readers are better served seeing search results than playing guessing games with us. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per BDD. I think a disambiguation page would lead to a lot of partial title matches, and not a lot of help to someone searching for this topic. Tavix | Talk 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Mote. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:PLURAL - there is no WP:PT for Mote, and the current target uses the singular. Plural should be redirected to the dab, and incoming links disambiguated. I've created Mote (sensor) and used it in the dab. Widefox; talk 09:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - I see no reason to keep this redirect. The only links to it are related to this discussion. The creator of the page has a link to the mainspace article on his/her talk page, so won't need this redirect to find it.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Pop music. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - unless we are going to add nonapple and nonskyscraper and nonskateboarding, etc. The Business article doesn't have a section describing what isn't a business. People looking for information about a business won't type this, and those looking for the opposite won't find any information.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Neelix, do you remember what you were thinking when you made this? Was it along the lines of the topics Lenticel mentioned? It made me think of work aversion or something, like a position against business. Anti-capitalism? Not exactly. --BDD (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. I know, we ain't nothin' but mammals, and humans are mentioned at the target article, so this is kosher. This aspect of the article should be expanded, however. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete I am not sure in what way deleting this redirect would promote the creation of an article; it wouldn't cause any redlinks in article space. However, this redirect doesn't follow the manual of style. "Asian hair" was deleted as incoherent and "Hair of Asian people" was deleted as an attack page. All three were created by the same user. In short, delete "Asian Hair" and the misleading information in its history, and, if a redirect for this topic is desired (I have no opinion about this), create "Asian hair" instead.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Velo-, can be related to Latin "velox" (swift), or "Velum" (sail), or the French word "velo" (cycle) is more often used in speed and cycle-racing related words (velocity, velociraptor, velodrome, for example), rather than mouth related words so this redirect is misleading.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Do we have any other redirects for word prefixes? Ivanvector (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Frown. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Target of redirect is currently Mouth#Orifice. The "Orifice" section does not exist. Furthermore, the source name is vague and may surprise people looking for Frown or something. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, this may fit better as a Wiktionary entry. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to frown. There is some indication from Google that this term is used colloquially to refer to the loosening of facial muscles in aging, resulting in characteristic drooping of the cheeks and corners of the mouth, and a resting frown. I haven't found a medical term for it but "frown" is close enough. Ivanvector (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Retarget to Nasolabial fold as suggested by Lenticel. I'd feel more sure about this if the Nasolabial fold article had any references. I considered Wrinkle, but it doesn't mention wrinkles from smiling. (Maybe it should.)—Anne Delong (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Clearly this redirect should not be here. Did the creator intend to mean Evil eye? Even still, it would be vague. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete it seems to be a 1965 French thriller film according to IMdb. --Lenticel(talk) 00:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, keep, this redirect was wrongly moved by bot, it is an alternative title of Eyeball (film). The article about the film was originally placed at Eyeball, then an editor moved the page at Eyeball (film) and redirected Eyeball to Eye, forgetting to fix the wrong redirect pages. --Cavarrone 06:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Weak retarget to zygapophysial joint, also called "facet joint", although "joint" is not in the redirect's title. I don't know what this was supposed to have had to do with the eye. Ivanvector (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ohh, the history is informative. This is another Twinkle-misled redirect to section nominations; I have fixed it. A facet is one of the eyes which make up a compound eye in insects. Disambiguation might be better here. It's not mentioned at Eye but could be very easily. Ivanvector (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete – meaningless redirect. Google search does not reveal an entity that could be designated as "Balboa, Oregón". The target article does not mention "Balboa" (and did not at the time the redirect was created). --Lambiam 21:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - According to Google, there is a Balboa street in Oregon but come on, that's a bit too specific. --Lenticel(talk) 00:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - there seem to be a few things this could refer to. Lenticel found one; there is also a Lake Balboa, Oregon but we don't have an article (but do have Lake Balboa, Los Angeles), and there may be a business called Balboa which operates in Oregon. I also tried looking on es.wiki for possible international targets but "Oregón" specifically refers to the U.S. state, and there just doesn't seem to be a match. Ivanvector (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was dabify. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The term "tea boy" is probably archaic, but when I think of the phrase, I associate it with a low or entry level job in a large company, analogous with working in a mail room, with the hope of progressing to a more senior position. Perhaps a standalone article should exist, perhaps it should redirect somewhere else, but I think where it currently goes to is inappropriate. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment, from the article: "In 2007, it was reported that in Glasgow the term Tea Boy had become an increasingly popular alternative to "ned"." --AmaryllisGardenertalk 14:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

But from a random reliable source, I read "They ran the tape back and forth, pushed record and play, kept session notes, made tea. You've probably heard the demeaning expression tea boy used - it comes from those days" - which is AFAIK is talking about a tape op and hence nothing to do with Scottish slang and considerably older. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment isn't this a male counterpart to Tea lady? The google book search that I did seems to tell me that he's a manservant that brings tea. --Lenticel(talk) 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I think the connotation is more that it is a menial job or, sometimes, a sinecure. I did wonder whether a Tee boy had ever been punned to mean a caddy, but it seems not. (Teeboy is a clothing brand, variously hyphenated.)

That being said I don't like that the lede of Tea lady says that it is her "sole" job to make tea, which to me sounds rather patronising or demeaning and the word "sole" should be cut - especially since the article discusses the fact that the "tea lady"'s other unofficial job is the upkeep of the grapevine (gossip), something not attributed to tea boys. Si Trew (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguate - none of these uses seem to be primary to the others, and all seem valid enough. Different uses could retarget to hooligan, McJob (or whatever we decided on that one), or as the male counterpart to a tea lady. Ivanvector (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I drafted a dab page in place. I think that perhaps my third link (to McJob) should be removed - I didn't find any sources for this usage and it's a bit awkward anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment possibly (though it's not mentioned there), but is it the cultist who is being authoritarian, or the cult? mutatis mutandis, does an authoritarian historian mean an historian who is rather high-handed, or one who specialises in the history of authoritarianism? Si Trew (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if that's what I meant. But it will do as a target. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 16:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Relisting comment: Authoritarianism isn't mentioned much at Classifications of religious movements. Do we have any evidence whether "authoritarian cultist" is a phrase in usage or if it was made up?Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete, not a plausible search term for the one mention BDD has noticed. Siuenti (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Moved the DAB page to FIFO. This is already done, but consensus here supports it. There was also a discussion at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I created fit in or fuck off which is also known by the FIFO acronym. I noticed that there were three other articles using the same acronym, yet FIFO went to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIFO_%28computing_and_electronics%29&oldid=644966399 (since then renamed from "FIFO" to "FIFO (computing and electronics)"). It already had redirects to 2 other FIFO articles in the header and I had now added a 4th one "fit in or fuck off". It was crying out for a proper disambig page for FIFO. This I set up and I also included a link to the Wiktionary page witch gives a general definition as well.

However User:BD2412 has just moved "FIFO (computing)" to "FIFO" which creates quite a mess and obviously obliterates the disambig page.

It looks to me like blatant favoritism for "FIFO" to go to a technical article on computing and electronics when the term has several other more everyday uses including the Wiktionary definition. In any event you would expect anything with four possible meanings to have a disambiguation page. Penbat (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete and re-establish the disambig page. How many links are affected should not be considered ahead of what the content implications are, and not having a disambiguation page means some people will not be able to find the article they are looking for. I'm not sure whether "fit in or fuck off" actually passes GNG, but that's another discussion for another venue. Formerip (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hold on. Before we run in any rash directions, we need to examine the edit history here. "FIFO' was established as an article on the computing sense in 2002. In 2009, it was moved without discussion to FIFO (computing) and disambiguated; this disambiguation was immediately reverted with a request for discussion. This situation remained stable for six years, until yesterday, when it was again moved without discussion. Whatever the merits of changing the established structure may be, this change was highly disruptive because it broke a large number of incoming links. Although these links now seem to have been fixed, we should still consider whether there is a basis to change what has effectively been the status quo for the past thirteen years. bd2412T 20:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

After reviewing the numbers, I support having the disambiguation page at FIFO; please note that it is always best to fix incoming links before disambiguating, in cases like this. Cheers! bd2412T 21:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Support having the dab at FIFO per BD2412's analysis of the numbers. Siuenti (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The main reason to have the ,CA at the end would be to disambiguate it from other places with the same name; however, in this case, the main other place with the same name is also in a region refered to by the CA abbreviation - Ontario, Canada. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Ontario, CA" fails WP:PRECISE, so should not be a redirect to the California article. Ontario (disambiguation) has more than 2 entries, so TWODABS does not apply. There is no suggestion on creating a new disambiguation with only two entries. "Ontario" in California is not the primary topic of "Ontario", so it also fails primarity. WP:CRITERIA-failing redirects should necessarily point to disambiguation pages. Further, this is not the US Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia, so we should keep a WP:WORLDVIEW, where world postal addresses can use two-letter country codes, which would not be the US-state-code. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep—per BDD's reasoning. If others feel it's confusing, a hatnote at the top of the target saying, "Ontario, CA redirects here. For the Canadian province, see Ontario," should be sufficient. Imzadi 1979→ 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation). I disagree that a reader using this term is "probably" looking for the Californian city. Where is the backup evidence that shows that to be the case? I suspect that there is a good chance that readers worldwide when they type or see Ontario, CA (CA, as noted, being the country code for Canada) there are just as likely to be looking for the Canadian jurisdiction of 12,851,821 people (which contains Canada's capital and its most populous city) versus the California town of 167,500 (which, ironically, happens to be named after the Canadian province). Unless we have good evidence that shows that readers are clearly looking for the city in California when they type Ontario, CA, then redirect it to the DAB page. Why we would jump to assumptions about what people are looking for, and then rely on a hatnote to redirect readers again, is beyond me. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If I'm jumping to assumptions, I've at least started from evidence. As presented above, no redirects of this form point to Canadian territories or provinces. There's an entire redirect scheme based on US postal codes—I believe bots made some of them—because these are common ways of referring to those places. Additionally, looking over incoming mainspace links to this shortcut, most, if not all, appear to refer to the Californian city. That's pretty concrete evidence that people intended the Californian city when they wrote "Ontario, CA". --BDD (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Really, an "entire redirect scheme" created mostly by bots more than 11 years ago is evidence? Seriously? You think the best way to serve Wikipedia readers in 2015 is based on what bot users more than a decade ago were doing? And the maintenance links are merely evidence that wikilinks intended for a Canadian province and incorrectly pointing to a california city have likely been corrected over the years -- of course there are a handful of links pointing to the California city, because unlike the Canadian province there was no compelling need to fix those. The lack of incorrect redirects is not evidence, merely a testament that Wiki-gnomes are hard at work. Unless we have more than your hunch that users worldwide use postal abbreviations the same way U.S. residents do, we should redirect to the DAB page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes. The fact thats it was uncontroversial enough to be carried out by bots, that it's so long-standing, and that it doesn't seem to have been contested since all suggest that it's a very robust redirect scheme. It's pretty common in American English to use these abbreviations, even in speech—they're much more than just administrative codes. Unless you can demonstrate that readers are likely to use ISO 3166 codes as natural disambiguation, I rather think your position is the much more speculative one. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Who's going to "contest" tens of thousands of obscure postal abbreviation redirects done by a bot? Honestly. That's an even weaker argument than your one about the absence of incorrect maintenance redirects.

You've completely misunderstood my position. I never said readers are likely to use the country code, although it's common knowledge that country codes are widely used in Europe and other parts of the globe. I said that there is no evidence either way that our worldwide readership would more likely read CA as California or Canada, and therefore the redirect should point to the neutral DAB page. If you think, as you've suggested, that most of our readers are more likely to think of the California city, and that the redirect should point to a specific location, then please provide that evidence. Eleven-year-old redirects created by a bot are not evidence of what our readers are most likely to be looking for, for the many many reasons listed above.

I don't need to provide evidence because I am saying that there likely isn't any meaningful evidence either way. Americans use postal abbreviations. Europeans use country codes. For some reason, you think the actions of a bot in July 2004 is also relevant. Beyond that, we don't otherwise know how our readers are most likely to interpret or use "Ontario, CA". For that reason, it should point to the DAB. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misunderstood your position, but the fact that you think these forms are "obscure" suggests you misunderstand how common they are. Is it possible that for the past 10 years or so that this redirect has been confusing and misleading readers? Sure, but I think it's much more likely that it's been functioning as intended. The simpler interpretation makes more sense to me. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Common because a bot created tens of thousands of them over the course of a few days in July 2004. Common ≠ proof of usefulness or that they were all correct in the first place. Or that they are not obscure. I didn't say that the redirect has been confusing people for 10 years. Now that the issue has been raised, I have simply said that absent any concrete evidence that most of our users would assume that "Ontario, CA" refers to the California city, we shouldn't be relying on hunches and assumptions and we should point the redirect to the DAB (especially when the other potential target article gets way more traffic than the article on the California city). The Occam's razor principle, to which you point, actually supports pointing it to the DAB page - the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. I keep asking for evidence that readers would be looking for the California city, and nobody seems to be able to provide it. Which says to me that we shouldn't be making assumptions about what most of our readers will think or need, given that we know for a fact that "CA" can and does mean different things in different parts of the world, and we should point readers to the page which is going to give them the full menu of options. In your original comment, you stated that redirecting to the DAB was an alternative. I'm simply saying it's the best alternative, given the absence of compelling evidence either way. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for being overly argumentative, and I certainly don't mean to be disrespectful. I'm just a bit troubled by assumptions being made about what readers are most likely to do. I just think we normally require proof of primary use/reader usage, there is no real proof here except what a bot did in 2004, and as such the simplest and most straightforward approach is to redirect to the DAB page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I think I see the problem. Do you think I'm relying entirely on the bot action to say that these forms are common ways of referring to places in the US? That's putting the cart before the horse. I don't know how common such a practice is in Canada; do people refer to "Toronto, ON" or "Saint John, NB"? Like in speech, not just in addressing letters? This is common for American settlements, so (not because) the bot created those redirects. Regular Google searches or Google Books should provide evidence. Try "ontario CA"—I had to use Internet Explorer to avoid both personalized and localized results, though I admit I'm not positive I've avoided the latter. In the first two pages, there's only one result for the Canadian province, and it's not even until the second page. Books results are more mixed.

Retargeting to the dab doesn't do harm, sure, but as Steel1943 is saying below, when there are only two uses for an ambiguous phrase, it does make sense to choose the one that's more likely to be searched. Like it or not, the status quo rules here when there isn't evidence that it should change. Seriously, find me even one instance of someone expressing confusion over this redirect from the past 10 years and I may rethink this. If it had been pointing at a dab for 10 years, I would probably want to maintain that as well (absent evidence of confusion). --BDD (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely understand how postal abbreviations can be commonly used in the U.S.. I wasn't saying that you were using bot actions to prove U.S. usage, but rather that you were making assumptions about usage worldwide based on the 2004 actions of a bot (if the bot did it in 2004, and no one challenged it, then it must be what most readers are looking for). CA is also a country code, the web address for Canada, and ontario.ca is the government website in Ontario. There are a lot of real world examples of usage. You keep skipping over the issue. When you say "it does make sense to choose the one that's more likely to be searched", the one that's more likely to be searched is the unproven assumption you're making. You're jumpring to the that conclusion, and then poiting to a history of bot actions and redlinks as somehow demonmstrating real world usage. And "no one has taken issue with that in the past" can't possibly be the answer, because otherwise we'd never strive to improve Wikipedia (it's a full answer to most edits we make). What best serves our readers is the threshold we should be aiming for, not "I'm not aware of any past complaints....".

As for the Google searches, thank you. That's the first actual evidence of real orld usage supplied by anyone in this discussion. Everything else has been conjecture and "I'm not aware of any problems". Not particularly compelling, but that's the first substantive evidence that has been supplied, so that's helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation) as CA is the valid country code for Canada and people do use those codes. If this was the U.S. Wikipedia then it would make sense to keep the redirect as-is, but it isn't so redirecting to the disambiguation page makes more sense. Ca2james (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep per reasonings of BDD & Imzadi1979. If this is such as an issue as BDD stated, why are those others redlinks? How often is the province of Ontario typed out Ontario, CA as compared to the city of Ontario?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Redlinks are hardly determinative. The only reason this isn't a redlink itself is because a bot created it in July 2004, along with tens of thousands of other U.S. postal abbreviation redirects that same month. I find it hard to believe that we would make this decision based on which redirects bots created 11 years ago. We don't actually know "how often is the province of Ontario typed out Ontario, CA as compared to the city of Ontario" - that's the whole issue. Wikipedia serves a worldwide audience, and while CA is a postal abbreviation in the U.S., Europeans and others use country codes all the time. So again I ask, those who are guessing/speculating/hypothesizing that most Wikipedia users worldwide seeing Ontario, CA will think city in California, please provide some evidence to that effect. Absent any evidence, we should do what is best for our readers, which is to redirect to the DAB page.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep per BDD, but also add a hatnote to its target to distinguish itself from Ontario. The California city is most likely the primary topic for this term when looked up including the term "CA". Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that it's the primary topic? Normally, when establishing the primary topic on Wikipedia we look to real-world usage. There is an onus to supply that evidence. If someone could actually compile such evidence, I'd love to see it, and I would happily change my position if it were conclusive. But instead we have a group of editors, mostly American it seems, who are saying that their own familiarity with U.S. postal abbreviations and a series of redirects created by a bot in 2004 are enough to establish the primary use. Seems very weak. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how retargeting Ontario, CA to the disambiguation page Ontario (disambiguation) is going to help our readers in any way, given that the only two entries on the disambiguation page which the term "Ontario, CA" could refer are Ontario (at the top of the page) and Ontario, California (a little ways down the page). If readers don't know exactly what they were looking for, given the amount of entries on Ontario (disambiguation), redirecting there could confuse readers already confused to begin with. If a reader takes the time to type out the additional ", CA" in their search term, might as well retarget them to one or the other (Ontario or Ontario, California). And per BDD's findings, might as well leave the redirect as is, given that the status quo has titles ending with ", CA" targeting cities in California, such as San Diego, CA, Fresno, CA, and Bakersfield, CA. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said readers don't know what they are looking for? And how is looking at a DAB page worse than redirecting them to the wrong page? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See BDD's statement above about WP:TWODABS; it kind of sums up my point. The only other acceptable option I can see would be to turn Ontario, CA into a disambiguation page, but I would oppose that option per my previous statement. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the issue precisely. WP:TWODABS says a DAB isn't required where there is a primary use. Yet until now no one has brought forward any evidence of a primary use, except for some references to 2004 bot activities. After repeated requests, BDD actually came forward with some google search results (he's the only one - so thanks to him for that). It's two pages of Google search, so not exactly compelling, but he's the only one that has bothered to even do that. Everyone else is just guessing and assuming what the primary topic is, mostly American editors who seem to be assuming that everyone outside the U.S. reads "CA" the same way they do. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, I agree with BDD's finds; it enforces what I thought was the case to begin with. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. The fact that most of your argument was made on the basis of a hunch, before anyone supplied any actual evidence (even then, BDD looked at two pages of Google searches) is the problem. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for validating that my "hunches" match the facts. Anyways, my comments here are ending since you seem to have resorted to badgering me rather than continuing to prove your stance. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Taking issue with the fact that your position wasn't substantiated (and still isn't, to be honest) is not badgering. But if failing to do this, and then misrepresenting my comments/making accusations, gives you an exit, then fine. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm having an issue comprehending how you think I have not stated anything substantial to the discussion when I have stated that my comment is in line with another comment above that shows search results. I mean, what are you expecting me to say? Something creating that has absolutely nothing to do with the comments above? Good luck with that. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What happened to your small text? I never said you had not stated anything substantial. Your point was potentially a valid one, but there was no evidence backing it up (the search results were supplied by BDD later, long after you'd taken the position that the California city was likely the primary topic). If you think BDD looking at two pages of Google searches validates your earlier comments after-the-fact, then you're entitled to your position, but my point was that everything you had said earlier was on the basis of a guess. Which is why I took issue with it in the first place. And I think it's a problem that so many people took a position here without any evidence to back them up (and the fact someone supplied a degree of evidence afterwards doesn't make it less problematic). All I expected, which I said before you even joined the discussion, was that there should be actual evidence of reader usage/primary topic if the redirect points to a specific article. I'm not sure why you find that so problematic. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Either way, I have nothing more to add to this discussion. (By the way, the small text stopped since you didn't use small text as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fair too. I have nothing else to add as well, and apologies for beating a dead horse. An issue that is important to me isn't necessarily important to others. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep: BDD's reasoning seems pretty solidly sound to me. It may be the ISO two letter code for Canada, but it's very rarely used in that context, if ever. Illegitimate Barrister 17:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you know that? Country codes are routinely used in Europe. It's also the web domain for Canada, and ontario.ca is the website for provincial services in Ontario. So, tell me how you know that Ontario CA, or a variation thereof, is rarely used? Or are you just guessing? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No need to respond to my questions. Yours would appear to be the majority position. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation)or weak retarget to Ontario. There is no doubt that Ontario, CA is ambiguous, I mean, who would even argue that? Searching from where I am (Toronto), "Ontario, CA" brings up a fairly even mix of Canadian and Californian links, however the Canadian links are official while the California links are travel guides. Even typing "ontario california" brings up the home page of the provincial government. I guess that means my search results shouldn't be counted on, but then neither should any of yours if you're within the United States. The lack of "CA" redirects to the other provinces is only evidence that there aren't places in California with the same names, or that if you were to type "Alberta, CA" in the search box, you would get to where you want to go pretty easily. As a resident of the Canadian province, it isn't particularly common here to use the CA construction when referring to ourselves or to other provinces, however it is quite common internationally to do so in my experience, as in giving someone my address to send me mail. My point here is that our arguments about what is the primary topic are likely to be flawed if we are basing them on internet search results, and in light of that I think it better to disambiguate. Ivanvector (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably because that's only a variant name. Whatever bot was making these redirects apparently wasn't operating as late as 2009, when Rockwood, California was created; I just created Rockwood, CA as a redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep due to the way postal abbreviations work. "Ontario, CA" refers to a city and state(/province [because provinces fall under this scheme as well]), not a state/province and country. You typically don't see "California, US" or a variant thereof. However, after reading this conversation, it seems that not everyone understands/knows this, and so it's reasonable to have a hatnote at Ontario, California guiding those users to the Canadian province, just in case. I decided to be WP:BOLD and add the hatnote myself, and hopefully all parties can at least be satisfied with this compromise. Tavix | Talk 20:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"it seems that not everyone understands/knows this" Not one comment above suggests that to be the case. Some people simply do not share your opinion, and disagreeing with your assumptions doesn't mean they're unaware of basic facts.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Misleading redirect to Independent politician; while it's a small local party, I don't think its members can reasonably be considered independent merely because their party's name contains that word. Huon (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a fairly standard group of local independents who have formed a local independent grouping and have set up a political party to enable a shared platform and ballot paper identifier. As such the redirect to independent politicians is suitable. This is of course unless I have misinterpreted the name and the party advocate Canvey Island as an independent political and sovereign entity. If the article can be expanded o cover the Canvey Island Independent Party in a meaningful and verifiably notable way then please go ahead and do so. Sport and politics (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Weak retarget to Canvey Island#Governance or delete per WP:REDLINK. The party is mentioned at that section, which also says that 16 of its 17 councillors belong to the party. Setting aside that the idea of a party of independent politicians is a paradox, that level of success makes me think that the subject is notable enough for its own article. With respect, the redirect is unacceptable as is, since Canvey Island isn't mentioned at all at Independent politician; it will only disappoint and confuse readers looking for the CIIP. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:REDLINK, per BDD. Also the redirect is misleading; if a group of politicians have come together under a common political banner with the purpose of advancing a common cause, they are by definition not independent. Even if they put "independent" in their name. My province has a "progressive conservative" party; names are meaningless. Ivanvector (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC) We also have None of the Above; politics is silly

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep, retarget, retarget, retarget, retarget, and keep, such that the first six all target Layperson. I'm retargeting Lay people to Laypeople as an {{R from modification}}—pardon the BOLDness. These pages would probably benefit from merging as suggested. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Various male rappers are named at the target article, but there's no such list. Delete or write the list. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

CommentList of female rappers redirects to Category:Female rappers, I don't know if this is any more or less appropriate than that, but it seems to make sense. Obviously list of male rappers would be a behemoth of a list (there are about 2,500 deleted edits at List of rappers, which I suspect was primarily made up of men) but categories are effectively self populating. So I guess I say retarget to Category:Male rappers? Or is that speedy deletable under R2 (I can never remember). --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Category:Male rappers. Because of its age, shouldn't be deleted. Redirects from mainspace to category space are allowed, I think - they are both reader-facing namespaces. Normally lists and categories should not be considered redundant, however this list is somewhat likely to suffer from extremely vague inclusion criteria and become indiscriminate (as would List of female rappers and List of rappers) and be needlessly difficult to maintain, so redirecting to the category is probably better. In fact that seems to be part of why List of rappers is salted. Ivanvector (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm not quite sure what to do with this. Google assumes "astrography" is a typo for "astrophotography", but that may be influenced by this redirect. Astrography seems to be a distinct concept, but I'm not sure it's one we cover. It sounds very similar to Astronomy. None of these options are especially appealing to me. BDD (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment I've invited WP:ASTRONOMY to this RfD. I'm not sure what astrography is for. We do have an article about the astrograph though. --Lenticel(talk) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently leaning to Weak Delete to encourage article creation until someone who is more knowledgeable in Astronomy can give us a better background info on the matter.--Lenticel(talk) 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Retargetto wikt:astrography. This seems to be a portmanteau of astronomy and cartography, literally making maps for the sky. It is notastrophotography, and an astrograph is a device used in astrophotography, so both of those are not proper targets for this. Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

comment I'm also fine with this retarget if this is indeed its synonym. --Lenticel(talk) 03:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to celestial cartography. It's a separate concept to astrophotography, although the instrument name astrograph does confuse people. Astrography means drawing maps of the heavens and is another word for uranography, which already redirects there. Modest Geniustalk 11:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted? It looks to me like there was basically unanimous agreement to retarget to celestial cartography above, other than the nominator who was also the relister, but didn't comment on relisting. Astrophotography is a different thing entirely (taking photographs of stars) and although very slightly possibly confusing, there is no ambiguity with astrograph which is basically a star camera. Ivanvector (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirect created under the mistaken assumption that US Bank would buy the naming rights to a proposed stadium in Minneapolis. Mosmof (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep - rather than a mistaken assumption, it seems to have been almost a done deal, per [13], and per [14] calling this name the "frontrunner". And I don't see any reliable source that the deal fell through. Ivanvector (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete There is no reason to keep it now, if us bank gets the naming rights the page would need to be deleted anyway in order to move the page to the new title Skippypeanuts (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

*Weak delete per WP:RFD#D2, "may cause confusion". While I note Ivanvector's refs, they're not at the target and I see no easy way to integrate them there (if they were I'd change my view to keep it as {{R from incorrect name}}). Since US Bank Stadium and U.S. Bank Stadium are red (which tends to indicate to me this term was not that popular), and the stats are <1/month on average, I think on balance that it's better off deleted. But User:Skippypeanuts' reasoning for delete is invalid: the article could be moved over the redirect at any time. Si Trew (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, dabify, keep, and keep, respectively. I think this distills the consensus here, but please let me know if you have any concerns with this close, as always. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

An article was recently created under this wrong name. This redirect (created as a result of the move) is totally unnecessary. There are no links to this page. SD0001 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Because the article was written by an inexperienced user. I have now modified the first sentence on this R's target. It seems that 'Scottian' is just a term that people at the college use internally. It has no relevance otherwise. A Google search for Scottians or even Scottians Scott Christian College does not turn up any relevant results at all. By the way, the content added to the college's main article was by 220.225.222.66 (contributions), who seems to be the same person as the creator of this R's target (Samueljjohn), given the similarity in editing pattern. SD0001 (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I know I is the only perfekt editor on the hole project. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to me, apparently, but since you mention it... Si Trew (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - the college is pretty much the only thing that didn't come up for me when I googled. I get Scott Ian, or if I tweak the search criteria to exclude his name I get results for Fort Scott, Kansas. I think it would be best here to retarget to Scotian as a misspelling, and add entries for different uses for "scottian" there. Ivanvector (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

'Added to nomScottian. Plurals generally should R to the same as their singulars.

Messieurs et mesdames, ne faites plus ses jeux. The lede has been changed three times since this has been listed, no edit particularly satisfactorily (WP:OPENPARA, WP:LEDE spring to mind). Si Trew (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: The lede of which page? Also, please stop using languages other than English, as you have done here and in the edit summary. This is the English Wikipedia; editors here may not necessarily know French. SD0001 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this or this are more reliable sources for the word's English usage. For a redirect, it doesn't need to be particularly reliable. But on second thought it does seem unlikely that the pluralized form also refers to Scott's work, that just seems awkward. Ivanvector (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Let's just delete the Scottians redirect and keep the others as is. SD0001 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it as is. We agree that it definitely (probably?) doesn't refer to Walter Scott, but that it does (maybe?) refer to alumni of the college. It's unlikely to cause confusion and isn't misleading, so I don't see a reason to delete. This short newspaper bit mentions Scottians as college alumni, and this blog (not RS, I know) refers to alumni as Scottians extensively; it may be that it's a highly local term. And like I said before, I haven't found a competing usage which would open the door to possible confusion or ambiguity. Ivanvector (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Keep Chicken shit is a common enough expression for coward, and since coward redirects to cowardice that is where it should redirect to. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep There are other uses for the phrase, but this is the most common, and is indeed very common. The best solution is a db page to other uses, but until then, the current redirect is still better than deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I see no evidence that it's a common expression; WP:NOTDIC and it's not mentioned at the target. (The British equivalent is more commonly just "chicken".) Si Trew (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well it has an entry at wictionary, maybe an interwiki redirect would be more appropriate. But it certainly is a common enough expression in North America (keeping in mind Dennis and I are from very different parts of the continent, and are of the same opinion). It would be one of those things like not having to cite the sky is blue, in my experience.--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Wiktionary as {{Wiktionary redirect}} (which I note is not in Category:Redirect templates). I don't think anyone's disputing that the term is a common expression, but we don't have an enyclopaedic definition (or indeed any definition) for it. Si Trew (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am good with a Wictionary retarget, it would likely be more useful than where it sits now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I still wish someone would just make a short article or db out of it. "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit", Chicken shit -> cowardly, chicken shit -> petty or inferior, chicken shit ->fertilizer. These just have to be sourceable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what Wiktionary is for. One can put citations there. Anyway, why not let that "someone" be you? Si Trew (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Long story short, I don't have time right now. It's complicated, or I would have just done it already. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I have started making a stub out of it. LadyofShalott 22:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC) I would prefer keeping it as an article, not a redirect. LadyofShalott 00:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep - There is more to the noun than the euphemism, though I think the euphemism may be enough if sourced. I'm just guessing, but I would think that there is more than one political situation which involved the phrase... - jc37 00:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Procedural close please, converted to article by @LadyofShalott: nicely done!

I've removed the RfD tag there. I have Partridge (your ref) in the 1st edition so if you remind me I'll see if it's in there. Si Trew (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. I seriously considered Rich's proposal, and I don't think it would be at all incorrect. But it would likely be misleading, since the book's title is synonymous with a type of academic thought. An article about the book at that title would be fine, or even a WP:DIFFCAPS situation if Black feminist criticism were about the academic topic. But as such, it seems more likely to confuse or disappoint readers. I would imagine Barbara Christian would still be a top search result for the term. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Recently created redirect obviously created in good faith. The problem is that there is no actual section to redirect this towards, so when people search "Black Feminist Criticism", they don't get what they are looking for. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - agree with nominator. If there were such a section, then there would be no reason to capitalize this. Ivanvector (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete as WP:RFD#D2, "The redirect may cause confusion". Is it meant to be criticism by black feminists or of them? Let alone that a feminist who is black is not necessarily a black feminist, and vice versa. Si Trew (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Central meridian" is not explained on the target page or on the three links under "Earth science". Central meridian (planet) has an explanation. Iceblock (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Central meridian (planet) - As I understand it the central meridian is the meridian of an astronomical object which passes through both of the object's poles and its apparent centre as viewed from Earth, and this seems to be the only use for the term. Compare with Prime meridian which is a reference meridian used to define 0° on a projection map, but isn't necessarily the same thing. Ivanvector (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In that case, we'd want to move Central meridian (planet) there. I don't have an opinion on the idea right now, but procedurally, that would be the way to implement it, to avoid unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I was thinking about the use of this term in cartography and map projections when I created that redirect. I believe I clicked on a red link to create it, but that now seems to have gone. The articles noted by Thryduulf probably should link to the term; better yet would be to expand the redirect into a short article which explained the use of the term in cartography. The Central meridian (planet) article didn't exist at the time, and I'm not convinced it's particularly reliable. Modest Geniustalk 15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Cartography is not the same as map projection; in English, the former tends to deals with visual aspects, and the latter with mathematical ones, roughly speaking. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

These are far from common names, contrary to wikipedia guideline. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - since the merge was apparently incorrect and did not happen, I think the proper treatment here is to movecentral meridian (planet) over the redirect, per Thryduulf, and add a hatnote "For the meridian used as the centre of a projection map, see prime meridian". Or better wording, I'm not good at hatnotes. It seems the astronomical definition is actually used in sources as-is, while the geographic meridian that is used as the central point of a projection is properly called a "prime meridian" and not a central meridian. And we already have an article on that. Ivanvector (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The prime meridian is not the centre of a map projection, it's the starting point of a coordinate system. The central meridian is the centre of a map projection -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that the same thing? Ivanvector (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's very different. A coordinate system is not dependent on a map. Many different projections, projection methods, maps, can be created onto which the same coordinate system can be applied. And vice versa. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're being imprecise, as a map projection still results in a Cartesian flat coordinate system, not to be confused with the angular volume coordinate as in geographical/planetary coordinates. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

They're independent properties. Prime meridian is the origin of spherical longitudes on the globe; central meridian is the origin of Cartesian coordinate x on a flat map. If you don't use a map projection, you don't need a central meridian either. If you do need a projection, you can pick any combination of prime meridian and central meridian. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguate per User:Fgnievinski. We should probably add Prime meridian into that DAB, too, even if technically incorrect, since it might help people to find the information they are looking for. I've made the DAB at Draft:Central meridian (noting that was a redirect that was moved to Central meridian (planet) by User:DGG and probably should have not left the R after a Request for Creation), I would rather not just boldly replace this R with the DAB while it's being discussed. I'm mot sure the disambiguation of (planets) and (map projections) is ideal – I'd have had (astronomy) and (cartography) – but since they serve properly to disambiguate the topics that's not worth worrying about. Si Trew (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding principal meridian, and corrected the draft about prime meridian (it is independent of map projections). Fgnievinski (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: Thanks, the last thing we'd want is the DAB to be wrong too! Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

MoveCentral meridian (planet) to the base title and the draft to Central meridian (disambiguation). If we only have one article on a topic that we can accurately call "central meridian" but there's still potential for confusion with other topics, and a subtopic of another article, this seems like the simplest solution. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was dabify. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please delete. The (first and second)) radiation constants are c1 and c2, not the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (σ) that this is currently redirected to (see e.g. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/codata.pdf, page 65 (page 1591 in the document), TABLE XLI (at the top of the page)) Uli Zappe (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Question - isn't the Stefan-Boltzmann constant also a radiation constant? If so it would be better to disambiguate, if there are possible targets for c1 and c2. I didn't find any, but this isn't my area of expertise. I will leave a note at WikiProject Physics. Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You are (kind of) right; unfortunately, the terminology is confusing here. You wouldn’t call the Stefan–Boltzmann constant itself a “radiation constant”. However, historically, a (see bottom of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant article) was called Stefan–Boltzmann constant. Meanwhile, however, Stefan–Boltzmann constant means σ, so that a is now sometimes simply called radiation constant (it should always be called radiation density constant to avoid this confusion, but it isn’t. Oh well.) So yes, a disambiguation would make sense. And no, there is no article yet about the first and second radiation constants, so the link to them should currently be red, but not point to Stefan-Boltzmann constant which has nothing to do with it. Uli Zappe (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep The radiation constant is related to the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and is described at the bottom of the Stefan–Boltzmann constant article, so the redirect is correct. c1 is the first radiation constant and c2 is the second radiation constant. The distinction is clear to me. --Mark viking (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The “radiation constant” a the Stefan–Boltzmann constant article refers to has nothing to do with c1 and c2 (the first and second radiation constants); its correct name is radiation density constant. So what seems clear to you is in fact a prime example of the confusion that stems from linking “radiation constant” to Stefan–Boltzmann constant without any disambiguation. Uli Zappe (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don’t want to have a dedicated page for the first and second radiation constants, you might add information about them to Planck's law (as this is the context they belong to) and link to this article. However, this article is already quite long … Uli Zappe (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made a draft at the redirect, with a slight change. Does that work? Ivanvector (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I’m afraid we have a circle now, cause Planckian locus mentions c1 and c2 and links to radiation constant for further explanation, which links back. Clearly, the place to introduce c1 and c2 should be the Planck’s law article (calculating the Planckian locus is just one of many application of Planck’s law), but so far, this article doesn’t. I could add that but would prefer if a native English speaker did.Uli Zappe (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Uli Zappe:if you want to create a draft of the insert, I'll happily sub-edit it with you. Si Trew (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Si Trew: A draft is on User:Uli Zappe/Draft. It is meant to be inserted after chapter 2.2 Spectral energy density form in Planck's law, becoming chapter 2.2.3. Frankly, it’s a bit awkward because the original article a) uses B instead of the correct SI unit L for spectral radianceand b) makes spectral radiance the “default” unit of Planck’s law, while this is usually the spectral radiant exitance M. So the new chapter is not as straightforward as I would like it to be, but I cannot rewrite the whole article now ;-) … Uli Zappe (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Uli Zappe: I've subbed it, with the bits I'd remove struck out and those I'd replace them with underlined. It read just fine as it was, but I think the bits between the maths can be written a little more simply without losing accuracy (e.g. the "standard" in "standard SI" is redundant when SI is a standard). If I've made any statement inaccurate, I apologise: of course accuracy comes before readability when it comes to a technical article. (I've not touched the formulae.) As for rewriting the whole article, as an intelligent but ignorant reader I'm happy to sub it (in draft) and pass it to you to make sure it all makes sense etc. Si Trew (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Si Trew:I’ve incorporated all your suggestions (removing the strokes and underlines), and then added three modifications to the resulting version myself (again using strokes and underlines), with explanations in brackets. Please have a look at these changes and tell me if you agree.

As for reworking the whole article, I hesitate to do this. In Germany, SI units and symbols are used almost universally, and so I’ve never encountered the B that is used for L here. But I see that some of the sources referenced in this article also use B. OTOH, the source I reference in my draft (which uses L) is from nist.gov, i.e. it's a U.S. source. So I just don’t know how the common usage in anglo-saxon countries (and in other English Wikipedia articles …) is. Switching from spectral radiance L to spectral radiant exitance M as the default quantity would certainly make sense from a content POV, but is not trivial, because all formulas would have to be edited accordingly (and should be consistent with other English Wikipedia pages dealing with this subject). So I’d prefer if someone from WikiProject Physics could take care of that (if that’s what’s desired). Uli Zappe (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Add nom: I've also added Radiation Constant to this discussion. If the dab page is agreed upon, this alternate capitalization redirect should be retargeted there. Ivanvector (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

All of this physics is making my head hurt. Uli, Si, Ivan, are we good with the disambiguation added to the original redirect? --BDD (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Uli is the expert here. I am happy with it. I did look at the articles and can understand the maths but not my domain of interest, and I think Uli there has the expertise to say. The maths is all tied up properly, and Uli even put something to me in draft and all has the right maths tags and so on to make it look pretty to readers (Nice job, Uli!). So I think it is up to Uli more than anyone else. Fine by me. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: I’m just waiting for the OK (wrt/ English language) from Si for my last three modifications of my draft. If he agrees, I’ll insert my draft as chapter 2.2.3 into Planck's law, and then the disambiguation can link to this chapter. Uli Zappe (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Si Trew: Si, can you please look at the last three modifications of my draft and tell me if they are OK? Uli Zappe (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get pinged to this, maybe notifications don't work with pipes? Anyway I'd say you could close this with the dab pointing at Planckian locus for now, and once Uli's info is added to Planck's law then the dab can be fixed. I also can't comment on the math; it looks good but it's over my head. Ivanvector (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ready?: OK, somehow Si seems to have vanished into air, so I just went on and incorporated the new Radiation Constants chapter I wrote into Planck's Law; I’m relatively sure that remaining English errors, if any, are harmless. I also updated Radiation constant accordingly. So from my POV, the new Radiation constant version could now go "official". Uli Zappe (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Heroes. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Retarget Data corruption per Lenticel. I personally think "corrupt" (adj.) is not suitable with "file", but it is obvious what is actually wanted here. Corrupted file and File corruption also redirects there. 野狼院ひさしu/t/c 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per Lenticel. Seems obvious this was the intent. Ivanvector (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - implausible. Interestingly, when I Google this, I get directions to a church in Balcatta, WA. I have no idea why. Ivanvector (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: According to their Life Groups Directory, "David Borshin has a men’s ‘soaking’ group meeting Thursdays fortnightly at Churchlands." I have no idea why, but I presume it's not a drinking session. Si Trew (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I just hope he hasn't a daughter named Anna. Si Trew (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete it seems to be how it's pronounced (a-bor'shun). Still, I agree with the nom. --Lenticel(talk) 03:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - implausible, per nom. I also found the IPA results as Lenticel did but it's a partial match. Ivanvector (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. It may be as a result of rebracketing (metanalysis, DAB) of the indefinite article, as well as misspelling. As such it belongs better at Wiktionary, but bortion is red. My Gsearch for "had a bortion" shows some nontrivial results for "a bortion" including an e-book, which is probably not RS from WP's point of view but a good citation of first use at Wiktionary:

Howe, Della (2000). Son of Abortion. Xlibris Corporation. p. 126. I don't want my baby taken away. Dr. Miller took mine. Mine was only three months old inside me. I had a bortion and he took it away˘I want a baby!

"Borshin" (above) has nothing on Gsearch (in fact, the RfD above has the only two Ghits).

Comment. This is written in what seems to be an attempt at the vernacular:

"hesteringey" (21 September 2013). "Wantababy". The breast blog in the world. wordpress.com. 'Are you kepeing the baby then?' I arsked. My voice was a croke. I wantid her to say, 'No, iyum going to have a borshun.' That was mene of me but I dident want eny one to be abel to kepe there baby, if I couldent.|chapter= ignored (help).

Again, not RS of course, but shows the phrase is in use In Real Life. Would be WP:CRYSTAL to assume it would be in an RS dictionary any time soon. Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was dabify. We appear to have reached unanimous consensus. Please let me know if you have any concerns. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

While technically correct, the term debauchery has a more sexual connotation to it. Article does not talk about this. People have complained about this on the talk page, so these are clearly doing harm. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I don't see any way to prevent listing individually with only one template substitution since templates don't (to my knowledge) have a parser function to auto-find its target if it is a redirect. However, this might be possible with Twinkle since it has a way to detect if a page is a redirect, but has no way currently to list multiple nominations. It may be a question to bring up on Twinkle's talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Either of the above, or soft re-directs to Wiktionary. Though I think both the traditional and the deabauched meanings probably warrant articles. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

I've drawn up a draft disambiguation page at Draft:Debauchery. Take a look. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks good to me, assuming of course that minor description will be added next to each listed link. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure how to do that in this case, since the entries without descriptions are just sometime-synonyms. While descriptions are common and helpful, MOS:DABENTRY also says "In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." --BDD (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The proposed dab page seems fine. I had always read of "lust" as "desire" and "debauchery" as "action" upon that desire, but that's a normal editing quibble. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I say disambiguate by moving the draft over the R. As for adding descriptions, I think that would be unnecessary WP:DICDEF. Myelf I would not have thought of lust and debauchery as at all the same, and I would delete that: the entry on lust mentions it only in a definition of seduction: 'Seduction is a type of lust, because seduction is a sex act, which ravishes a virgin. Lust is a sin of sexual activity, and, “…a special quality of wrong that appears if a maid still under her father’s care is debauched”' — by which debauchery clearly means deflowering: perhaps that should be added to the DAB, but deflowering → virginity and should probably be refined as {{R to section}}Virginity#Cultural value , where it is mentioned (although deflower → Virginity#Loss of virginity, in the section immediately above). Debauchery is not, however, mentioned at virginity. Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was restore article and send to AfD. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no information about the fire department on the page that this redirects to. Zackmann08 (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Restore for AfD - I think this is probably not notable, but I'm on the fence. As a redirect, it's a weak keep as a longstanding redirect, and not quite a delete as misleading. I say restore this version and then pass the buck to AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete as not mentioned at target. The old article has no references so it's not worth merging. Siuenti (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I think it is unfair to characterise those above as "complaining". Adding unreferenced content is not "done", it is just a start, and may be a false start. Si Trew (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Restore then nominate for AfD/Prod'. I think taking a shortcut to delete this article using RfD will set a bad precedence. --Lenticel(talk) 06:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. There is rigorous debate over whether this page is a valid WP-to-user redirect or an illegitimate endorsement by Wikipedia of a user-space experiment, but there is no clear outcome to this debate. The option for a soft redirect was brought up; though it did not gain traction as an option, it is technically not precluded by this RFD either (since it does not concern deleting the page). Harej (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This very recently created cross-namespace redirect needs to be deleted. The target page was kept after an MFD, with many of the keep comments specifically noting that they thought this was okay in userspace but did not want the page in WP space. Putting a redirect from WP space makes it seem that the community has approved this term or this concept, and that hasn't happened. I think we need more community input. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep. I created this redirect to make it maybe a smidge easier for women - 10% to 15% of the community - to find this little space that I'm trying to develop to help address the gender gap. WMF legal okayed the space, and many comments supported it. Lightbreather (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete A page in userspace where a user limits participation (akin to asking people to stay off one's own talkpage) is acceptable, just about. A redirect that suggests it is a Wikipedia project space page that is limited only to editors dictated by a single user is not acceptable. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that goes for project space as well as article space. If Lightbreather wishes to bar certain groups of editors from her userpages that is permissible, but trying to shoehorn this concept into project space by way of a redirect is not. Yunshui雲水 15:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Further comments as nominator. In addition to the other issues listed in the nomination, Kaffeeklatsch is not a common term in English and is not one people would normally search for. Furthermore, the target page is only for women; we should not be linking from WP space (which is open to anyone) to a page where 90% of the editors are banned from editing. Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Redirects are not going to be random users' search terms, they're only there for experienced editors who already know what they're looking for. Also, WP space is not open to anyone. For example, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard is a page in WP space, but not open to anyone. In fact, over 99.9% of editors are barred from editing it.--GRuban (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Did... did you seriously compare a page in userspace to ArbCom's noticeboard? Did you seriously just do that?

I'm not even going to bother commenting further on this particular "point", because I think its ridiculousness is plenty obvious already. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I already know what is being discussed. Nevertheless, the fact that you compared a userspace page's redirect to ArbCom's noticeboard makes it impossible to take your argument here seriously. That's like comparing your garage lemonade stand to the Vatican City. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless RFD is different from AFD in this regard, the nominator's nomination counts as your !vote, so you should strike this other bolded "delete". You can still participate in the discussion, of course. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral. I'd recommend that LB seek getting the KAFFEEKLATSCH made into a WikiProject. It's highly likely that it would bring about editor recruitment of both professed genders, but nevertheless recruitment. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am pursuing that idea, and have been since January 6, thought it may take months to happen... if it happens at all. Lightbreather (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete redirect Either this can be a userspace project and you can exert some level of control over it or it can be a Wikipedia space and you can give up all control over it. You can't have it both ways. Also there may be canvasing going on in this Mfd that is biased towards one gender. Chillum 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Upon further thought, the redirect is not the problem here. The problem is that Wikipedia is allowing gender based discrimination. I say that anything in the Wikipedia namespace needs to be open to consensus and an all female club does not fit that description so I endorse deletion of any Wikipedia redirect to a place that does not allow all parties to contribute to consensus. Chillum 00:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep. As pointed out by Lightbreather, this should be seen as a free zone for an underrepresented demographic. It has a specific purpose that does not exclude anyone from editing articles. Until we get a reasonable handle on the gender gap, it's a perfectly valid strategy. Please consider the big picture here and try not to apply the letter of the law so strictly. PeterIsotalo 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. This cross-namespace redirect should be deleted per WP:R#DELETE, reason #6 (It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)) since it is not one of the listed exceptions nor does it meet any of the reasons to keep redirects. The fact that the page was recently kept after MfD discussion - or even that WMF legal determined that the page does not violate the Discrimination policy - is not a justification for making an exception to the redirect guideline. Ca2james (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Er - the very text you are quoting is telling you you're wrong. It's not a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, since the WP: redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace. --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Point taken: it's a redirect from project to user space which I personally think goes against the sprit of that guideline. Either way, this redirect does imply that the page is OK in project space. Since many MfD keep !votes specifically stated that this page is OK because it's in user space and not project space, this redirect should be deleted. So my delete !vote stands. Ca2james (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please also note that although the soft redirect was added after I !voted, my Delete !vote applies to both. Ca2james (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete The redirect is unnecessary. Userspace pages do not get to get mainspace redirects. Furthermore Peter Isotalo, Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, and it is completely inappropriate to act as digilantes and break the rules just because you feel that they are preventing you from righting great wrongs. Ignoring all rules is fine if you are trying to improve the encyclopaedia, but trying to "fix" a community is not improving the encyclopaedia; it is attempting to modify the userbase, which does not fall under "the encyclopaedia". Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not about article content so citing WP:GREATWRONGS makes no sense. We have a massive, undisputed gender gap, and that's bad for the project, both for content generation and for women users. Going after a redirect seems litigious and lacking in collegial sensitivity. No harm will be done by simply ignoring a technical breach of guidelines, but shooting this one down will obviously act as a discouragement. Those who disagree should seriously consider abstaining unless they can point to any realistic consequences from allowing this to stay. PeterIsotalo 16:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Undisputed? I don't think we have any idea what the gender ratio is here. The vast majority of people do not self identify and the numbers being tossed around are dubious at best. Chillum 16:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going by the surveys about this that have actually been made and published. It's more reliable than random speculation by individual users.

You don't need to be an authority on online surveys to know that they rarely reflect reality. The fact the the participants were self selected is enough to show it is dubious at best. I think men are more likely to admit their gender only due to less fear of discrimination. Chillum 18:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Again, you don't just get to "ignore a technical breach of guidelines" just because you don't like the fact that this redirect goes against them. Many dispute that this redirect betters the encyclopaedia. Furthermore, those who have a particular agenda should seriously consider abstaining unless they can point to any realistic reasons that this should unquestionably stay. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep - allowable cross-space redirect, gets users to the information they're looking for. It's not a page in project space, it's a redirect from project space to a page in user space. And if there is any chance that this makes the project even a tiny bit more friendly to female users, it is obviously of clear benefit to Wikipedia. No policy-based reason for deletion has been suggested; some users simply don't like it. Ivanvector (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My response to Peter above applies to you as well. One is not allowed to ignore the rules if it is not for the purpose of bettering the overall articles in the progress. Using Wikipedia to further a personal agenda is not allowed here.

Your arguments refer repeatedly to content in article space (including your link to WP:PEACOCK, which is a style guide and has nothing to do with user-to-user discussions) but nothing we are talking about here is in article space, and there is no threat here to article content. Indeed the purpose is bettering articles, by making the project as a whole more hospitable to a diversity of editors, and countering our well-known and deeply-entrenched systemic bias. This redirect is doing much more good than harm. Ivanvector (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Tharthan, you're not actually citing any relevant rules, though. Not even guidelines. You've referred to WP:PEACOCK and WP:GREATWRONGS and both are about article content. So which rule is being broken here? PeterIsotalo 16:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they aren't truly applicative, but the fact that you are willing to overlook things that don't benefit you worries me, though. Laissez faire is a corrupt approach to doing things. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What worries me is the fact that you struggle to pull mainspace-based content guilelines in here to make your case for deleting this harmless non-mainspace non-content redirect, yet you still haven't put forward a reasonable policy-based reason for deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Perhaps"? You're saying we should delete this innocuous redirect because it breaks rules, but you cite no relevant rules. So what are we overlooking?

Delete. This redirect is misleading, and there's no evidence that it serves as a useful navigation aid. There is a Category:Redirects to user namespace but virtually all of these are for pages that were once in WP space and later userfied. In those cases a cross-namespace redirect is warranted so as not to break pre-existing links. This is not the case here. It's a user space experiment not open to general editing and participation, and in fact explicitly excludes the majority of editors. A redirect like this allows it to masquerade as something it's not, particularly if used to link to the page in lists and discussions instead of the actual name, e.g. "See also Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH". I might think differently if not for the MfD for this page (in which I did not opine one way or another). Approximately 2/3 of the "keep" !votes at the MFD were on the basis that this area was in user space, and several of them explicitly said they would strongly oppose it in WP space as did two or three of those who commented without !voting one way or another. Voceditenore (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep - since the target page has been kept at MfD, this is an entirely reasonable redirect. I see no policy-based reason to delete it; in no way is the mainspace involved here. LadyofShalott 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep per WP:R#KEEP #5. "Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Creator states above that this redirect was created "to make it maybe a smidge easier for women ... to find". Let's WP:AGF. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Observation. Previous RfD examples Yogurt Principle, Yogurt Rule, and Concision razor were all deleted under the same principle - that "Wikipedia:" redirects to pages in user space gave the mistaken impression that something had community support when it did not actually have community support. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Those were redirects to user essays, essays which did not have community support. This page is not an essay and does have community support, per the MfD. Ivanvector (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The MFD showed that the page was accepted within userspace. Many of the keep comments specifically noted that the editor would not find it acceptable in project space. This redirect circumvents that. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom and others. In German (many here speak German), "KAFFEEKLATSCH" is a social group that isn't defined by sex. By this edit[15], Lightbreather has add to the page: Shortcut: WP:KAFFEEKLATSCH, making it seem like a mainspace article. Yet if Lightbreather is right, 90% of people editing here will be directed to a page that excludes them. (And readers will be confused, expecting and article.)

Lightbreather retains total control of the content and removes comments from some females, defeating the purpose of a place for open discussion among women. e.g. (Ongepotchket)[16], (Montanabw) [17], (Pitke))[18], (SlimVirgin)[19]. And despite spamming editors and WikiProjects, since 27 January only three editors have signed The Pledge. EChastain (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector, what do you mean by "errant comments"? They were attempts by females to discuss Lightbreather's proposal. Why were some allowed to remain like those of LadyofShalott? What's the purpose of the page if no discussion is allowed? EChastain (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, LB asked users to either sign the pledge before commenting on that page, or to comment on LB's talk page instead. Those users had not signed. LadyofShalott had signed at the time she left her comments but later removed her signature. That's all I'm able to offer; LB might have more. Ivanvector (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I asked Lightbreather to comment. I know they were moved. No one said they were deleted. When I move a comment from one page to another I leave a note at the receiving page, (in this case it would be Lightbreathe's talk page), to inform readers of the move. I just wonder why Lightbreather didn't think it was important. . Buster SevenTalk 18:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I equate removal with deletion, in the sense that many editors refer to their comments being "deleted" from a talk page, and listed the diffs for the benefit of editors here who might share my interpretation. But I understand your point. There may be some insight in SlimVirgin's edit here. Ivanvector (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Buster7, there is a Welcome message at the top of the Kaffeeklatsch page that says:

If you have not signed the pledge, please join or start a discussion on the hostess' talk page.

If an editor continues to post on the klatsch page without having signed the pledge page I simply move their post to my talk page under the "Kaffeeklatsch discussions" header. Lightbreather (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see what EChastain has done: given diffs for my removing comments from the klatsch page, but not the diffs that show me immediately moving them to my talk page![24][25][26][27] (Actually, the first one was moved by Sarah (SV) herself.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, correction on what EC posted: Six women have signed the pledge, two have removed their names. (So there are four there now, including myself.) Honestly, with the kind of "welcome" this idea is getting, I expect just building membership will be a hard task, but just because it may be slow-going doesn't seem like reason alone to ditch it. Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, please AGF and answer directly without I've done something underhanded. So to be clear, a net of three editors have signed the pledge, not counting you. (If they remove their name, then you count them as signed?} LadyofShalott has removed herself from the pledge, so why are her comments still there? How do you expect a discussion if the comments of other female editors are removed without their concerns being given a heading, or even addressed at all? SlimVirgin removing her own is entirely different than you unilaterally removing the feedback of others without commenting or leaving any indication as Buster7 suggests is good practice. You say: "I will start a separate discussion and after we get 10 or 12 members" regarding the wording of the pledge. But how do you expect anyone to sign if their concerns about the pledge are removed without being noted? EChastain (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

EChastain, that is one definition of Kaffeeklatsch. Another long-standing one is "A mid-afternoon gathering of women."[28] They were quite common among women in the American Midwest when I was growing up. Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC

No, readers will not be confused, because Wikipedia project space is not main article space. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers will never see this. Ivanvector (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector why are you doing all the answering for Lightbreather? She's busy editing and could answer for herself.[29]EChastain (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter? I lurk RfD, and you're asking questions that seem to have obvious answers. Lightbreather might have more to say, but that doesn't preclude my responding as well. Ivanvector (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector yes it matters. She was asked a direct question, important in determining what this page is for. One female editor's concerns were given a section title for discussion, while others were just moved off the page with no opportunity to get feedback. Why was no discussion allowed? EChastain (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

All this consternation is the result of a poorly designed system that required allegiance before discussion would be allowed. No sign, no voice...at least not where the editor wanted their voice to be heard.. Buster SevenTalk 20:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ EC and B7: No comments were deleted! They were there for feedback, and they're still there for feedback! Go knock yourselves out...[30] but if it gets attack-ey or harras-ey, I will delete it. Lightbreather (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither EC nor I said anything about deleting. You and Ivan mentioned deleting. BTW, an having on open membership is not hard. It's having a restricting membership that is hard. . Buster SevenTalk 20:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with the redirect that we're discussing? We already had a discussion on the merits of the page; consensus was that it's fine. If you'd like to reopen that discussion, you need to talk to the admin who closed the MfD, not gripe about it here. Ivanvector (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Fact: Comments were re-moved...from the Coffee Clutch to LB's talk page without any mention (other than Sarah mentioning it herself) in either place. Bad practice. The history of a page, especially a talk page, should be obvious on sight. If someone took the time they could figure out the development of THIS long-winded and fragmented discussion bt way of time stamps. The comments that were moved to LB's talk page are intermingled and any individual integrity was lost. Bad practice. I am not insensitive to the plight of Women editors in a world surrounded by "testy" men. But not every editor making a counterpoint is an anti-feminist. Buster SevenTalk 16:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw what she said. My comment was not for her. It was for you and anyone else that reads it. . Buster SevenTalk 16:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Karanacs and Chillum and others. The solution to the gender gap is neither further isolation nor is it intentional segregation. I understand that naysayers get in the way of focused conversation. There is absolutely no doubt that the gender ratio is skewed. . Buster SevenTalk 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you put it better than me. Isolation and segregation. Neither of these things is good for an equality movement and they run contrary to the spirit of a project that anyone can edit. Chillum 18:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete: It's quite simple, all politics aside, it's not possible to have the official Wikipedia designation leading to an unofficial non-Wikipedia page. Giano(talk) 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep: There is no danger of confusion with the WP mainspace article. I am not convinced of the need for the project, but so long as the project exists, I think the redirect is appropriate so people can find it. Also, the reality of this being a RfD here actually gives some credence to some of Lightbreather's positions (if her position is that women endure discrimination on WP) That said, I'm not interested in joining at this time. Montanabw(talk) 22:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I nominated it...and I'm female. I think it is an inappropriate use of a redirect. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

delete as an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect which makes it look like an project/guideline/help page. If one day there is consensus to promote the user page to a guideline then and only then might this be appropriate, but right now it does not belong, especially as its non-English name makes it entirely unclear what it is for.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A further observation: if this is kept then what's to stop other editors creating redirects in WP: space to their own creations, whether proposed policies, essays, or whatever? Probably they will choose a shortcut in English not German. And as more of these are created (and pages can have two or more of them) editors will become more and more likely to come across them searching for policy pages. There aren't that many pages in WP space, relative to the other namespaces, so over time such cross-namespace redirects could come to represent a large proportion of the WP: shortcuts, created by the page creators or other well meaning editors, making it harder to find actual policy pages – the ones meant to start with WP: . The way to avoid this is to treat this as other redirects into userspace and delete it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

At Subpages:Allowed uses, you'll see: "Avoid additional incoming and outward links that would make it appear as if this "/Temp" page is part of the encyclopedia", and "don't create navigational templates that make it appear as if this temp page is part of a series of encyclopedia articles", etc. It suggests using {{userspace draft}} to make this clear. It also note the WP:NOTAWEBHOST.

Further down: "All of these pages are your user pages or user space. While you do not "own" them, by custom you may manage them as you wish, so long as you do so reasonably and within these guidelines." Under What may I not have in my user pages, it says, "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." So is WP:KAFFEEKLATSCH permissible? EChastain (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's permissible. The community determined at the previous discussion (at MfD) that the page is suitable, having considered all of the guidelines you mentioned above. What we're talking about here is a redirect to that community-sanctioned page, which is also fine. The text you've quoted regarding /Temp subpages refers specifically to point 8 on that page, which deals with creating a temporary article in a talk space with the intent of working on it while a copyright violation is being repaired, and of course discourages linking to the temporary version from article space. That doesn't apply here - the user page isn't in a talk space, it's not a temporary version of an article, it's not intended to be an article, and the redirect is not in article space. Ivanvector (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep. As others have said, it's not uncommon – Category:Redirects to user namespace – for project-space shortcuts to point to user pages to make them easier to type and find. Anyone clicking on or hovering over the link will see it's in user space. Sarah (SV)(talk) 00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake above, which I've struck through. EChastain, thanks for pointing it out. Sarah (SV)(talk) 00:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hovering over links actually does work if you have WP:POPUPS enabled. But most users probably don't. Ivanvector (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete until such time as the target page is in projectspace. See also Voceditenore's comments above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete I agree with Nikkimaria, redirects such as these don't go to user-pages unless it is a project. For those who are arguing about the proposal its not and should not be about that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete I am a concerned with elevating the status of this redirect because I am concerned of promoting, or institutionalizing within Wikipedia, the protection of silo'd off spaces with exclusionary non-meritocratic group memberships. Exclusive talk spaces on Wikipedia by their very nature encourage group editing behaviour and the coordination of edits among people of like perspectives. Isn't such a group, by its very nature of being driven by a group interest in its editing behaviour, an institutionalized form of meat puppeting? WP:MEATPUPPETSpudst3r (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. It is not a valid or useful cross-namespace redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Speaking as someone who strongly supported keeping the userpage otherwise, this does not look to be in line with how I understand the Wikipedia namespace which: "contains many types of pages connected with the Wikipedia project itself: information, policy, essays, processes, discussion, etc.." I felt the userpage itself was should have been entirely uncontroversial, but this redirect means it's "connected with the Wikipedia project itself", and while that may be the case in the future, it's not now. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Cross-namespace redirects that go from project space to user space are well within policy. Otherwise the entire Category:Redirects to user namespace would be deleted. This redirect is a useful navigation aid for editors trying to find the Kaffeeklatsch. gobonobo+c 15:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Having the redirect means the Kaffeeklatsch has to operate by the rules of Wikipedia, that is by consensus. Consensus (also amongst self-identified women) is that a wikipedia-wide women-only page isn't desirable for several reasons. Let Lightbreather run her user page just as she wants to, but let's not pretend that all of Wikipedia works by her rules. 134.224.220.1 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Further comment. If this is actually kept because of lack of consensus, then there is stark corruption afoot. Insisting that a needless redirect needs to be kept because "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG AND YOU'RE ALL JUST BIG MEANIES THAT WANT TO RETAIN THE SYSTEMATIC BIAS!" should never be perceived as persuasive. I thought that we tried to run things here based upon reason and consensus, not by emotion, rash judgment, and activism. Perhaps things have changed for the worse, and I just never realised that people had become unreasonable.

Now I speak to no individual person when I say this, but rather to something I've seen in discussions on Wikipedia as a whole as of late: I truly hate how, in these types of situations, extreme conservatives crying "Keep things the way that they were just because it's the status quo!" and extreme liberals crying "Change things just because I want to stick it to the man!" seem to get more attention than the people that actually have valid arguments. If you want this to be kept, give a legitimate reason for why it should be kept. A legitimate reason isn't "I support the ideals of the proposer and think that a temporary breach of how things run is worth it in the long run", a legitimate argument would be "Here are some other examples where wiki-space redirects have been used to redirect to userspace pages, and here is why this proposal is beneficial to the encyclopaedia".

Remember, in the end, it doesn't matter if this gets more opposes than keeps or keeps than opposes. Wikipedia doesn't run by votes here, it runs by the amount of reason placed in arguments and furthermore how much reason is present for each side. Please propose things at the village pump and related areas. Do not suddenly create redirects out of nowhere that go against protocol without reasonable explanation that is not composed of loaded words and nonargument arguments. That's gaming the system to get one's preferred way, and that's not allowed. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on discussion at hand: the relevant consensus is here, if users commenting here would like to read it. This redirect's existence or deletion does not alter, influence, or qualify that consensus. The consensus, per closer Harej, was simply "page kept". Other users here have read this and that into the closing statement but the fact is that the community has approved the existence of Lightbreather's user space project - it is thus Wikipedia sanctioned. It's as simple as that. This discussion will not change that; it can't, it doesn't have jurisdiction. If you want to revisit whether or not the page should exist, your first step is to contact the closing admin, and then proceed to deletion review. Frankly it's disappointing to see so many editors banding together to undercut this editor's meagre effort to improve the editing environment for other women, an activity which threatens nobody, but it is off-topic for this discussion.

This thread is about the redirect, not about the page. There is no policy or guideline which forbids redirects from the Wikipedia: space to User: space (only redirects out of article (main) space are forbidden by WP:CNR and this redirect is in Wikipedia: space), and this particular redirect does not meet any of the criteria for deletion specified at WP:RFD#DELETE. A lot of users here who really want to see the page get deleted have cobbled together disparate policies and guidelines to form a coherent deletion argument, but such logic simply doesn't apply here. Ivanvector (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Who is proposing that the page be deleted? This discussion is about whether or not the redirect gets deleted. Lightbreather has already been given the go-ahead to have that page. Anyone commenting that the page should be deleted should be being ignored, so I don't know why you bring up the small few that are trying to abuse this RfD.

(edit conflict) Several of the arguments here are of the form "this redirect should be deleted because the page shouldn't exist" which is faulty logic. By extension, arguments of the form "this redirect should be deleted because the page has issues" and "this redirect should be deleted because the page is against the spirit of Wikipedia" are also faulty. If the page was deleted then this would be WP:G8. But we already agreed to keep the page, so none of those arguments apply. I'm intending to note for whichever unfortunate soul gets assigned the regrettable task of closing this that there have been no valid deletion arguments presented. Ivanvector (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Uh-uh. You are not a neutral party. So who are you to say "there have been no valid deletion arguments"? Let the one that closes this decide for themselves whether there have been valid keep reasons and/or valid deletion reasons. Not you. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)There is a difference between having the page exist 'in user space with community consensus, and with having consensus for a redirect from project space to point to such a page. I voted keep in the MFD yet initated this discussion because I thought the redirect inappropriate. Having the redirect implies that this consensus exists - and this discussion should be the determining factor in that. Yes there are some redirects that go from project space to user space. Many of these are legacy - the page was moved ("userified") and no one wanted to break the existing links. That is not the case here. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Things are kept in userspace when they haven't been approved of by the community for inclusion in wikispace. That's why user essays don't get redirects from the wikispace (unless, perhaps, they used to be in the wikispace).

Why the devil should this be any different? Because (to quote the page that you love quoting oh so much) you like it? I'm afraid that that's not a legitimate reason, Ivanvector. Like I said in my previous comment: a legitimate reason to keep this isn't "I support the ideals of the proposer and think that a temporary breach of how things run is worth it in the long run", a legitimate argument would be "Here are some other examples where wiki-space redirects have been used to redirect to userspace pages, and here is why this proposal is beneficial to the encyclopaedia". Can you actually provide me with a legitimate reason in the vein of the aforementioned without having it filled with activism or driven by emotion? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right. You are absolutely right, my friend. The valid reasons for deleting a redirect are conveniently listed at WP:RFD#DELETE. Which of these does this redirect meet? Ivanvector (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The reasons at WP:RFD#Delete are specific to redirects to articles. That does not mean that no other redirect can/should be deleted. The target page is only for women; we should not be linking from WP space (which is open to anyone) to a page where more than 90% of the editors are barred from editing. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Yunshui and Karanacs, and the fact that redirecting from meta space to user space implies endorsement. That a category exists of redirects from meta to user space only gives us a list that needs to be examined very closely, and having a category does not constitute community endorsement of the action, as anyone can create one. I can list other policies that this edges on, but it should be obvious enough if examined closely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the "implied endorsement" argument, as though there are some [user] pages that the community (we) decide shouldn't be here, but we keep them anyway. Of course we don't - they go through MfD and get tossed, regardless of what namespace they live in. That the page was kept is the endorsement, and that is our only endorsement. The redirect has nothing to do with it, it's merely a navigational aid. The category is one of several hidden categories automatically populated by the {{rcat}} templates for sorting redirects. Ivanvector (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting from Wiki space to user space IS an implied endorsement, saying it is on par with a page in Wikispace. This is why we generally don't allow it except in implied circumstances. My comment about categories was a reply to above, which was (mistakenly) implying that because a category existed, then doing meta->user redirects was always acceptable. That is clearly not the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. If i want to find the KafeeKlatsch that I've heard so much about, I'd try searching. In the searchbox, start typing "Kaff" and you get suggestions of various mainspace pages. Oh, i recall that to search in non-mainspace, proceed instead typing "wp:kaf" and the KaffeeKlatsch redirect is the one suggestion given. This serves readers. Also, if I want to refer someone, perhaps a new editor that I have welcomed, I would not remember the full named location (I know it's in some user's space, is it in their Talk space, which user...). I would like to be able to suggest simply: "maybe you would like to check out wp:KaffeeKlatsch", where I assume there is full disclosure that it is currently a private area in one user's space, and not a main part of Wikipedia. And likely misspellings should be redirects. If it is moved, then the redirect can be updated, and still works. This is simply courtesy. Why make it deliberately hard to refer to it? --doncram 21:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no. This is not a WikiProject. This is like if I were to create something in my userspace, and demand a redirect to it from the wikispace. It's stupid and doesn't make any sense to do so. The only times that that has ever seemed to happen is when an essay or the like was demoted to a user essay and moved to userspace. This is not a case like that. Nevertheless, if this because a WikiProject, please feel free to link this as such. Until then, no. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. doncram Did you mean to spell it wrong above? i.e. "wp:KaffeeKlatsch", where you "assume there is full disclosure that it is currently a private area in one user's space, and not a main part of Wikipedia." No, there's no "full disclosure" and SlimVirgin's assumption that a mouseover will reveal it's a userpage is also wrong. The definition from a blog, above by Lightbreather, doesn't match a dictionary definition: from "Origin of KAFFEEKLATSCH -German, from Kaffee coffee + Klatsch gossip" and doesn't say it's women only.[31]. Ivanvector, the MDF was for allowing a the subpage to remain in userspace and doesn't imply any endorsement for a mainspace link.

And, while "mouseover" views depend upon your settings, for me I notice that mouseover on the redirect does not show what is displayed from mouseover on the target. But anyhow, if there was a bit more "full disclosure" added at the target, perhaps that would overcome objections about the redirect? I could support that. I voted "Keep" above. Also, labelling it an essay is not useful; it is not an essay. --doncram 00:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Thanks doncram I didn't realize mouseover depends on settings. Is there a way to change settings in popups? EChastain (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, your preference settings can be set to show mouseovers or not to show them, at least. I found them irritating and turned them off for a while, now choose to show them again. Actually I don't know if there are other ways to change mouseover display, besides ON/OFF choice. --doncram 01:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would support that as well; it's just probably a good idea. @Lightbreather: (sorry to ping you back here) would you consider adding such a notice to the discussion to the Klatsch page? Perhaps {{workpage}} or {{user page}}, or something customized. Ivanvector (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Soft redirect? Making the redirect into a Wikipedia:Soft redirect is an option, technically, which might be a compromise here. To demonstrate, I am now making wp:kaffeeklatsch into a soft redirect. (Don't have a cow about that, anyone. If the outcome here is "delete", then that should be deleted also, obviously.) A soft redirect gives a user a pause, indicating (usually) that they are going off-site. As a technical matter, also, could a customised "full disclosure" message be provided at the pause point? Just an idea. If required here, then soft redirects maybe should be required for some other redirects to user-space, e.g. warning that an essay is not accepted. --doncram 00:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it can. And that seems to work, with the "message" I chose to display being "Kaffeeklatsch: a user-space discussion area with membership requirements". If you click on wp:kaffeeklatsch you come to a pause page with that, or if you mouse over it you also see that message. I hope that message is clear enough, and not loaded with any overtones. I think editors here can request/suggest to Lightbreather that the actual target page be edited at the top to have more "full disclosure", but the page was accepted as is, in the MFD. This discussion is about the redirect(s). I would be fine with the redirects being soft, with that short message or very similar short message. --doncram 01:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

doncram, that's a good idea if it's allowed (though it skirts the rules, as pointed out above, so that I or anyone else can put a shortcut in wikispace to one of my subpages). That way, people could be warned before they go to that subpage of Lightbreather's. Perhaps also adding that if they post, their post may be removed if the page owner doen't feel it's suitable. EChastain (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

doncram, problem. When I click on the soft redirect I get an error message, something about the page not having been approved by AFC, though I still get to the subpage. EChastain (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't get an error. Different question though: is it permissible to pipe a soft redirect link? Would it be better to briefly describe the target (re: membership/women only) rather than pipe? Ivanvector (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

About the message displayed, Lightbreather edited it to display the same description that she has added to the target page, instead of what I wrote. And I edited it further, to add back the word/phrase "user-space", so that it shows "Kaffeeklatsch: a user-space place for women to get together, hear, and support each other." Lightbreather has already edited the target page to indicate it is a userpage. I hope this message is okay, it is fine with me, and actually I don't think this RFD needs to debate the exact wording. The RFD can be closed Keep with specification of having a soft redirect, which serves a purpose no matter what the wording is, and leave the wording to usual editing processes (can be discussed at Talk page, etc.). --doncram 01:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: I have added your new redirect to the Rfd header above and will tag the redirect appropriately, as a matter of procedure since we're talking about it here. I support what you're doing and it would be fine by me if both of these were given the same soft redirect treatment. Ivanvector (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the first, but your tagging the redirect itself is messing up the example. I removed it, you and/or EChastain added it back. Could you please remove that? I think it interferes with this RFD, in the sense that you are making the mouseover of wp:kaffeeklatsch show badly, rather than allowing it to demonstrate what would be shown if the soft redirect is kept. I and many others are not familiar with soft redirects; the example, as long as it is not screwed up by unnecessary tags, helps the RFD discussion. Please. --doncram 04:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer is that it displays nothing, not because of the Afd template but because the soft redirect template makes it so that the page is not technically a redirect, so the script doesn't know to pull information from the target. For an example, mouse over this: Wikipedia:Bring Back Articles for Discussion. I'll remove the Rfd template so you can see, but the template should be there to let users who come across it know that we're talking about it here. Ivanvector (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

doncram I always get the error, that the page hasn't been approved by AFC. But it goes away and I get to the page. Probably will confuse some people though. It's really a silly redirect. No one is going to know how to spell it, and you have to be on Lightbreather's subpage before you even know about the redirect. So it doesn't help people get there. Anyway, she's spammed enough about it all over wiki, WikiProjects, userpages, on meta, Jimbo's page, other forums, on a WMF mail list, even many times at an arbcom proceeding she started so that plenty know where it is. Let's drop this whole thing. Even on the WMF gendergap mail list, no women joined. EChastain (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine if you no longer object to the redirect, if that's what you mean. But it does help navigate: try going to KaffeeKlatsch now by starting to type in "wp:kaf" and the search bar already understands where you probably want to go, you don't have to know how to spell it beyond 3 letters. And, it serves as a shortcut in writing: wp:kaffeeklatsch is a lot easier than User:Lightbreather/kaffeeklatsch or whatever is the full name. Hmm, while upcase vs. downcase spelling variations can be handled by the redirect(s), do full calls with those variations work? Try User:Lightbreather/KAFFEEKLATSCH? I think it does not. The redirects help. --doncram 02:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@EChastain: Is the AFC in your error referring to Articles for Creation? Could there be a helper script you're using which is generating the error? I still haven't seen it. Ivanvector (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector yes, I unchecked a bunch of things in my preferences and that error went away. Doncram said on his talk that he didn't have the correct user rights to create his redirect, so that's why I got the message. Also, the second redirect isn't a project page, though it's in a project page redirect category. EChastain (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep. A safe space for a specific demographic is a reasonable thing to have. The soft redirect and the descriptions are enough guard against somebody winding up there without realizing what they're going into. --Thnidu (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep. This comes across as pointlessWP:POINTy wikilawyering. The volume of text in deletion discussions about this project vastly exceeds that of the project itself. If you don't like the idea, the shortest path to your desired outcome is to leave it alone and wait for it to fade away. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The wikilawyering is mostly about the project, not the redirect, and as such is ultra vires here: a point many seem to have missed despite others repeatedly stating that this is Redirects for Discussion, not for discussing the project itself. I just repeat that since it seems to need repeating. Si Trew (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:GAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. Since this is not in article space, all the usual policies and guidelines can be argued out on technicalities. Patently it is not the intention of WP to promote a particular cause, which is implied by "branding" a user page with a WP: namespace. (Passing off would be the equivalent in real life.) Kaffeeklatsch, KaffeeKlatsch and KAFFEEKLATSCH are red (coffee morning would seem the more natural way to say it), so I am not sure how one is supposed to work out what it means. Si Trew (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There are no guidelines that can be ignored "on technicalities". We simply don't have any guidelines against this, and there's a reason for it. It's usually what we consider a sign of consensus, but for this case, you're insisting that we apply special scrutiny. That's some pretty harsh treatment of a modest attempt at improving a skewed user demographic. PeterIsotalo 21:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Comment transferred from speedy deletion template to RfD This page redirects to the National Party of Australia which is clearly damaging to the notable current formation of the Country Party of Australia. The National Party of Australia changed its name from the National Country Party in 1982. It was never known as the Country Party of Australia. This redirect misleads people who will now be searching for the Country Party of Australia as it is reported in current media in Australia. Proceeding Preceding comment transferred to RfD by userSafiel (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Safiel (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment Another user placed an a speedy deletion tag with the reasoning above. I procedurally declined speedy deletion and will take it to RfD instead. I am currently neutral as to whether this redirect should stay or go. Safiel (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep and hatnote. The primary topic is National Party of Australia which went by a close-enough variation of this name pre-1975; a hatnote should direct to the short-lived and now defunct New Country Party. If the user who nominated this for speedy deletion is referring to an even newer political entity by this name, I can't find it. Ivanvector (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see that it is a brand-new, very small party. Actually, that's not quite true: it's a group of people calling themselves this who as I understand it don't have enough members to be officially registered as a party. We've already deleted its page as not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party (Australia) if you like. This redirect is unlikely to cause confusion with that group. Ivanvector (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete My first thought was dabify, since it sounds like we have two articles on subjects that might be referred to by this name. But since it wasn't actually the name of either of them, I think search results might be the best way to go here. And if I understand the nominator's comment, there's a party with this name now? That means WP:REDLINK is a reason to delete too. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No, there is a party by this name in the sense that I and my cat have formed the America's Hat Party. Please write an article about us. The National Party which was formerly the Country Party is one of Australia's major political parties, akin to the Republicans or Tories depending on where you live. The New Country Party is more akin to the Blue Enigma Party or the Wessex Regionalist Party. The party which the nominator refers to is more akin to the aforementioned America's Hat Party. Ivanvector (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha! But you didn't check your sources - I live with two cats. The other, like most cats, is a libertarian. (Jokes aside, I'm sure you can WP:G7 the mainspace redirect for that) Ivanvector (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the solution is to make an article on this party. I did a very cursory search, but it seems to have enough sources to pass WP:GNG. And if not, it can just be deleted. I may do this soon if no one else does. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it I don't object - creating an article is a fine solution to Rfds. But procedurally, this party's article was deleted by consensus at an Afd less than a month ago for being WP:TOOSOON. I think if it's going to be recreated it should pass a deletion review. I can't see the deleted version so I don't know how much work you've done with it, but it looks to me like the party is still too new to be wikified; front-page coverage is an indicator but still lacks in lasting notability. Ivanvector (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There are an enormous number of inbound links from historic politicians and electorates to Country Party of Australia, Australian Country Party, and piped links to Country Party which should really link through a redirect instead of a piped link in case the articles are ever separated in future. It is unclear from National Party of Australia#National Country Party, and National Party and The National's account of their history whether in fact the "Country Party" at the national level was always the same entity as the various state "Country Party"s nor strictly the same as that which is now the National Party of Australia. Somebody more knowledgeable than me should identify how many different article titles there should be for all these entities, even if at present some of them are described together in a smaller number of actual articles with inbound redirects for historic or alternative names, in case it later becomes helpful to create a separate article for the 1931-45 Country Party (Australia), similar to how United Australia Party is a different article to Liberal Party of Australia. If the legal name of the party in the past was "Country Party of Australia", then this title should redirect to the article that describes it (as it appears to do at present). If the legal name of that party was something else, then all the relevant links should go to that title (disambiguated if required) and see what's left. That's a long-winded and conditional KEEP this redirect as-is. --Scott DavisTalk 02:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. The arguments to delete appear to be stronger, and I think there's a very real chance that readers would be better served by search results here. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - this doesn't seem to be something that is actually measured. I found one source discussing "success indicators" in relation to post-WWII changes in the Soviet Union economy, suggesting that a new "key" indicator needed to be found, but that suggests that the phrase is a compound of other terms. We don't have success indicator and this would be different from performance indicator. Success is measured or achieved at a point in time; performance is ongoing. Ivanvector (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Muddle: This sort of business terminology is really quite a muddle because top flight thinkers define their own terms and re-use terminology with new senses, while second rate writers often employ these concepts without articulating, or even having, an integrated framework. Definitions and undefined uses of "KPI" and "KSI" vary: this source explicitly says they are synonymous, and this one explicitly contrasts them as different. A good target article would need to give an overview of metrics employed in business performance management while taking full cognizance of the diversity of approaches and the resulting incompatible definitions. Not an easy task to achieve in a neutral way without original synthesis because sources tend to each adopt one view with little acknowledgement of the diversity of views in the field. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What I meant above by "not actually measured" was that this is the sort of business neologism that management types cobble together from impressive-sounding words to make themselves look good in presentations, but doesn't actually have any specific meaning. We shouldn't have articles (or redirects) for those kinds of things, because they are barely a step away (sometimes not even) from being entirely made up. There are proper, textbook terms for business topics. This meaningless neologism is a real-life version of The Possimpible. Ivanvector (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget. I've carried out the merge and move specified by Rich. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Craft (band) is supposed to be merged to "The Enid" at which point Craft (metal band) should be moved to Craft (band), and a hatnote applied. It then makes sense to retarget per Siuenti, otherwise a dab page would be a better target. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.